Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — LONDON GENERAL OMNIBUS COMPANY (DISPUTE, BARKING).

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 1.
asked the Minister of Labour whether she is aware that there has been recently a strike of certain employés of the London General Omnibus Company at the Barking garage; and whether she has any information or made any inquiries as to its origin?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): Yes, Sir. The dispute was settled by agreement, and I have no information to add to the statements published in the Press.

Sir K. WOOD: Did the statements which the right hon. Lady saw indicate that this strike was fomented by the Minority Movement?

Miss BONDFIELD: I understand from the published statements that this stoppage, which commenced on the 5th October and ended on the 8th October, occurred as a protest against certain men being named for disciplinary action

CLAIMS to BENEFIT DISALLOWED on the ground that the Applicant was not genuinely seeking work.


Period.
Employment Exchange.


Woolwich.
Erith.
Dartford.


Men.
Women.
Men.
Women.
Men.
Women.


1929.
By Insurance Officers.


15th January to 11th February
148
50
22
8
8
6


10th September to 14th October
23
28
6
7
6
—



By Courts of Referees on review after payment of 78 days' benefit.


15th January to 11th February
8
—
4
—
3
3


10th September to 14th October
7
—
4
—
1
—

for refusing to use an automatic clock which they stated was in a dangerous position.

Sir K. WOOD: Did not the right hon. Lady see that the secretary of the union himself stated that it was not due to that sort of thing at all, but to the action of other people?

Mr. MILLS: Is it not the fact that, as a result, the clock has been placed in a position safer for the men using it?

Major the Marquess of TITCH-FIELD: 13.
asked the Minister of Labour whether she can give the House any information on the matter of the strike of employés of the London General Omnibus Company last Monday?

Miss BONDFIELD: I am not in a position to add to the statements made by the parties themselves and published in the Press.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

BENEFIT.

Mr. MILLS: 2.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of men and women who have been designated as not genuinely seeking work registered at Woolwich, Erith, and Dartford Employment Exchanges for the month of February and October, respectively?

Miss BONDFIELD: As the reply includes a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: 14.
asked the Minister of Labour the percentage of disqualifications, both for not genuinely seeking work and for other causes, to the total number of applications for benefit for the period 9th September to 7th October?

Miss BONDFIELD: The statistics of disallowance for any period include decisions on claims to benefit which were made before that period, but I will, if I may, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPOBT a statement giving such information as is available.

Following is the statement:

Claims to unemployment benefit, 10th September to 14th October, 1929.

Total fresh and renewal claim's made during period, 923,312.

Claims disallowed:


Not genuinely seeking work:



By Insurance Officers
13,129


By Courts of Referees on 78 days' review cases
5,227


Total
18,356


Percentage of total claims made
2.0


Other grounds:



By Insurance Officers
38,879


By Courts of Referees on 78 days' review cases
9


Total
38,888


Percentage of total claims made
4.2

Mr. BECKETT: 16.
asked the Minister of Labour how many claims were rejected as not genuinely seeking work at the Camberwell Employment Exchange in October, 1928, and October, 1929, respectively?

Miss BONDFIELD: During the five weeks 10th September to 14th October, 1929, 89 applications for benefit made at the Camberwell Employment Exchange were disallowed on the ground "not genuinely seeking work." In addition, Courts of Referees recommended for disallowance 18 cases on the same ground on review after payment of 78 days' benefit. The corresponding figures for the four weeks 11th September to 8th October, 1928, were 307 and eight respectively.

Mr. EDMUNDS: 24.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of claims, men and) women, which have been disallowed under the not-genuinely-seeking-work disqualification at the Cardiff Exchanges for each month during the present year; and the number of men and women who have been placed in employment through the medium of these Exchanges during the same period?

Miss BONDFIELD: I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement giving the figures desired, as soon as the information can be tabulated.

Marquess of TITCHFIELD: 25.
asked the Minister of Labour whether any decision has been come to on the question of increasing unemployment insurance benefits?

Miss BONDFIELD: The proposals of the Government with regard to unemployment benefit will be contained in the Unemployment Insurance Bill, copies of which will, I hope, be in the hands of members to-morrow.

Marquess of TITCHFIELD: May I ask the right hon. Lady whether she has read the powerful speech delivered at Manchester by the hon. Member for Dumbarton?

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Lady cannot be expected to have considered that to be one of her duties.

LIVERPOOL.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 3.
asked the Minister of Labour the figures of people registered as unemployed at the Royal Street Employment Exchange and the Leece Street Employment Exchange, Liverpool, on 1st November, 1929, and the corresponding date in 1928?

Miss BONDFIELD: At 4th November, 1929, there were 37,866 persons on the registers of the Employment Exchanges and Juvenile Bureaux at Liverpool, as compared with 35,257 at 5th November, 1928. The figure for 4th November, 1929, includes the Exchanges at Royal Street and Canning Place, which were not open on 5th November, 1928.

TRANSFER OF WORKERS.

Mr. LAWTHER: 4.
asked the Minister of Labour if she will take steps to inquire into cases of transferred miners who are
unable to obtain suitable housing accommodation, and seek the co-operation of the Ministry of Health in urging local authorities to lend their aid?

Miss BONDFIELD: I am in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health on the subject.

INSURANCE FUND (DEBT).

Sir A. POWNALL: 9.
asked the Minister of Labour what is the present indebtedness of the unemployment insurance fund; and, if the unemployment figures remain at their present figure, how long it will take before the maximum of £40,000,000 is reached?

Miss BONDFIELD: The debt of the unemployment fund on the 10th November was £36,850,000. I am afraid I cannot answer the second part of the question, because it asks me, in effect, to assume that there will be no changes in the unemployment insurance scheme, and, as the hon. Member knows, I shall very shortly be placing proposals before the House in this connection.

Sir A. POWNALL: Can the right hon. Lady say what is the balancing point?

Miss BONDFIELD: At the present moment, the balancing point is about 1,020,000.

Mr. STEPHEN: Can the Minister say when the Bill will be available?

Miss BONDFIELD: I hope it will be in the Vote Office on Friday morning.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Can the right hon. Lady say when steps will be taken to reduce the unemployment figure to the balancing point?

CONVICTED PRISONERS (BENEFIT).

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: 11.
asked the Minister of Labour for what periods in all John Tyler and Alfred Esqulant, who were recently sentenced to six months' hard labour at Old Street, have received unemployment pay?

Miss BONDFIELD: According to the records of the Department, Alfred Esqulant has not received any unemployment benefit since 1925, and John Tyler has not received unemployment benefit at any time.

Sir F. HALL: Will these men, after serving their term, receive unemploy-
ment benefit without having to prove that they have been endeavouring to obtain honest work? [Interruption.] May I ask for an answer?

Miss BONDFIELD: If that be a serious question—[Interruption]—the terms for the receipt of unemployment benefit are perfectly clearly laid down in the Statute.

Mr. W. THORNE: Did the hon. and gallant Member make inquiries about these men before he put down the question?

Sir F. HALL: I think it is perfectly plain, if the hon. Member will look at the facts of the case.

VOLUNTARY OCCUPATION.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 12.
asked the Minister of Labour whether her attention has been drawn to a deputation of unemployed men at Porthcawl who approached the local council for work without wages provided their unemployment benefit was safeguarded and that the council accepted their offer; and whether, seeing that the men are kept fit and the question of genuinely seeking work is solved, she can see her way to extend this system all over the country?

Miss BONDFIELD: I have noted this case with interest. As regards its possible extension, I would point out that this is a matter for the local authorities and not for my Department. On this matter generally I should like to say that I am strongly of opinion that any arrangements which provide unemployed persons with opportunities for voluntary occupation or recreation are all to the good. At the same time, I must add that, so far as I had any responsibility, I should think it necessary to satisfy my-self that the result was not to perform work without wages for which wages would normally have to be paid, or other-wise to depress the standard of wages.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Does not the right hon. Lady consider that an idea such as this should be broadcast throughout the country, seeing that it enables these unemployed men to do useful work, and so saves them from deteriorating?

Miss BONDFIELD: I thought I had made the answer clear. I welcome any-thing that will help the unemployed man to throw off his depression and make
him feel that he is a member of the community. From that point of view, I welcome the action taken in this case.

Mr. BATEY: Are we to understand that the Minister welcomes unemployed men being employed without wages?

Miss BONDFIELD: That question does not arise.

JUVENILES.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 17.
asked the Minister of Labour if in view of the present conditions of engagement of juveniles in industry and the wide fluctuations in the annual number of entrants into industry, she will consider the advisability of introducing legislation to make all vacancies for juvenile employment notifiable to the juvenile employment exchanges?

Miss BONDFIELD: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on the 12th November to similar questions by the hon. Members for Dudley (Mr. O. Baldwin) and Berwick and Haddington-shire (Mr. Sinkinson), a copy of which 1 am sending him.

STATISTICS.

Mr. SEXTON: 18.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed persons, male and female, transferred from Poor Law relief to the live unemployed register during the past six months; and what effect, if any, this has had upon the apparent increase?

Miss BONDFIELD: I regret that statistics giving the information desired are not available. I should, perhaps, explain that able-bodied persons drawing outdoor relief are for the most part on the Exchange register, so that, if there has been a transfer from relief to benefit, this would not show itself, except to a small extent, in the register figures.

LACE INDUSTRY.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: 21.
asked the Minister of Labour the numbers employed in the lace-making industry on 30th June in each of the years 1920, 1925, and 1929?

Miss BONDFIELD: Comparable statistics regarding the numbers of insured persons in particular industries are not available for any date before June, 1923. I will, if I may, circulate in the OFFICIAL
REPORT a statement giving such information as is available for the end of June in the years 1923, 1925 and 1929.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: Will the right hon. Lady also give the number of working hours?

Miss BONDFIELD: I will do my best.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Do not the figures show the very great success of Safeguarding?

Mr. W. THORNE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a very large number of lacemakers are working half-time?

Following is the statement:


Insured persons aged 16–64, classified as belonging to the Lace Industry in Great Britain.


Date.
Estimated numbers insured.
Insured persons unemployed.
Differnce.


End of June, 1923
20,230
4,690
15,540


End of June, 1925
18,540
3,220
15,320


End of June, 1929
16,290
1,655
15,265

AGRICULTURAL WORKERS (INSURANCE).

Mr. FOOT: 92.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if it is his intention to intro-duce a Measure for instituting a system of unemployment insurance for agricultural workers?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Dr. Addison): My right hon. Friend can add nothing at present to his reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage) of the 31st October, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

MINIMUM WAGE.

Mr. MANDER: 15.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the Government will take steps to see that there is established in each industry a minimum wage, below which no one shall be allowed to be employed?

Miss BONDFIELD: I cannot undertake at present to introduce legislation on this subject. As the hon. Member is doubtless aware, the Trade Boards Acts confer extensive powers in this matter, and it will be my policy to administer
these Acts effectively, so far as the ground is not covered by trade union organisation.

Mr. MANDER: As the Government are unable to promise legislative action, will they grant facilities for a Liberal Measure on the subject?

WORKING HOURS.

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 19.
asked the Minister of Labour whether she is aware of any industries in this country where the recognised working week, exclusive of overtime, exceeds 48 hours; if so, what those industries are; and how many workers they employ?

Miss BONDFIELD: I am having a statement prepared giving the available information, and will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT

PUBLIC SERVICE (WORKERS' REPRESENTATIVES).

Mr. KELLY: 20.
asked the Minister of Labour whether she has received any representations in favour of a revision of the regulations relating to payments to trade union representatives for attending courts of referees, boards of assessors, and trade boards, so that all work-peoples' representatives may be remunerated on a fixed basis, namely, the maximum at present allowed of 14s. per per day plus subsistence allowance, and thus render unnecessary the present declaration and the inquiries which are made at the works where representatives are employed; and whether she proposes to adopt this suggestion?

Miss BONDFIELD: Representations on this subject have been received from time to time, but I am not satisfied, on my present information, that a case has been made out for such a change in the basis of allowances. I may add that I should be reluctant to take a step which would convert these allowances into a fixed fee for attendance, as distinct from compensation for loss of wages, since the value of the service rendered is largely dependent upon its being voluntary and unpaid.

Mr. KELLY: Is that the right hon. Lady's conclusion, and is there no possibility of her reconsidering it?

Miss BONDFIELD: I would not like to lay this down as the laws of the Medes and Persians, but it is my present opinion.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES.

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: 22.
asked the Minister of Labour whether she proposes to introduce legislation to extend her powers and obligations in regard to intervention in and prevention of industrial disputes, with a view to securing a full inquiry into the circum-stances of each dispute prior to a stop-page of work?

Miss BONDFIELD: I am not satisfied that there is ground for an extension of the existing powers in this matter.

WASHINGTON HOURS CONVENTION.

Captain P. MACDONALD: 23.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, seeing that the existing agreements as to hours and wages in the railway, boot and shoe, furniture, chocolate-making and engineering industries would be rendered illegal by the unconditional ratification of the Washington Hours Convention, the Government will reconsider their decision to ratify unconditionally the Washington Hours Convention?

Miss BONDFIELD: The policy of the Government on this subject remains unchanged.

Mr. SANDERS: Is it not the fact that it it quite possible to bring the arrangements concerning the railway agreement and the bootmaking agreement within the four corners of the Washington Convention?

Miss BONDFIELD: I must have notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE.

TRAFFIC CONTROL (POLICE LANTERNS)

Mr. DAY: 26.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the red discs fixed to the ordinary lamp of traffic police officers have been found satisfactory; and whether any final decision has been arrived at as to the general adoption of this device?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Clynes): Experiments with red discs attached to the ordinary police lanterns are being carried out in the Metropolitan Police District in places where street lighting is bad or other special difficulties occur in the control of traffic. Until these experiments are completed, it is not possible to say whether, or to what ex-tent, the discs are likely to be useful.

Mr. DAY: In what districts have they been tried and, in view of the very heavy traffic at the Elephant and Castle, will the right hon. Gentleman try the experiment there?

Mr. CLYNES: They are being tried in the Metropolitan Police district. I will take further measures if later they are seen to be necessary.

EX-INSPECTOR SYME.

Mr. W. J. BROWN: 40.
asked the Home Secretary if he can now make any statement of the case of ex-Inspector John Syme?

Mr. CLYNES: I cannot add anything to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend on 31st October last.

Mr. BROWN: As the reply given on 31st October was to the effect that the Minister could make no statement, may I ask him when he expects to be in a position to make a statement?

Mr. CLYNES: I can only say that the two answers are quite consistent, and that I have nothing to add.

Mr. BROWN: May I beg the Minister to have the courtesy to tell us when he will be in a position to make a statement, and not to take refuge in that kind of reply?

Mr. CLYNES: My hon. Friend may not be aware that in the past 17 or 18 years innumerable answers have been given on the subject raised in this question, and that is why I say that I have nothing to add.

HYDE PARK.

Mr. DAY: 27.
asked the Home Secretary the number of charges of indecency brought by the police under the Hyde Park regulations during the months of
July, August and September, 1929; and in how many cases was the police evidence supported by that of private persons?

Mr. CLYNES: The number of charges of indecency brought by the police under the Hyde Park regulations was three in July, seven in August and five in September. In only one case was the police evidence supported by that of private persons.

Mr. DAY: Is the difficulty in getting private persons to support the evidence on account of publicity, and will the right hon. Gentleman consider giving the police authority to ask for their names to be suppressed?

Mr. CLYNES: That is not part of the question. It is a point on which my hon. Friend might see me.

CLUBS.

Mr. FOOT: 29.
asked the Home Secretary if he will state the number of instances during the past three years in which registered clubs have been opened in England and Wales in premises which had been previously used as licensed houses?

Mr. CLYNES: I regret that information on this subject which would enable me to answer the question is not in my possession.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTIONS.

POLLING DAY

Mr. FOOT: 30.
asked the Home Secretary if his attention has been drawn to the suggestion of Mr. Justice Swift, in the course of the Plymouth (Drake Division) election petition proceedings, that for the purposes of the Corrupt Practices Acts all elections shall be deemed to start on a certain day; and whether, having regard to the uncertainty of the law upon this matter, he will consider the advisability of introducing legislation?

Mr. CLYNES: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to his questions by the Prime Minister on November 12th. Beyond this I can only say that I cannot at the present time consider legislation on the lines suggested.

SPRING REGISTER.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 34.
asked the Home Secretary whether he will arrange for the publication of a spring register of electors in April, 1930, and thus shorten the 18-months period for which the present register is now in force, from May, 1929, to October, 1930?

Mr. CLYNES: I have no power to do this. Legislation would be necessary.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Will this question be within the terms of reference of the Committee that has been set up to go into the question of electoral re-form, seeing that it was decided upon by the Speaker's Conference in 1917?

Mr. CLYNES: I should like to have notice of that question.

BLIND ELECTORS (SECRET BALLOT).

Mr. KELLY: 49.
asked the Prime Minister if the Committee set up to deal with the experiences of the last election will have in its terms of reference the institution of a method by which blind people may be able to vote by secret ballot, seeing there is a plan prepared which would enable this to be carried out?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): This is not one of the matters which it is contemplated would be dealt with by the Conference.

Mr. KELLY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider adding this to the terms of reference so that these people may have an opportunity of voting secretly without trouble in the country districts?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid that it is quite impossible. This Com-mission, or Committee, has been appointed for a very specific purpose. It is quite true that it is in relation to voting, but under that all questions can-not possibly be included.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Will the Government make some alteration of the present law in this respect? I suppose the Prime Minister is aware of the feeling in regard to the matter.

The PRIME MINISTER: I am perfectly aware of it. I think the Government will have plenty of time before another necessity arises of considering the matter.

LICENSING LAWS (WALES).

Major OWEN: 31.
asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the existence of special licensing laws in Wales and the fact that a separate Commission has been set up for Scotland, he will consider the setting up of a separate Royal Commission to inquire into the whole of the licensing system in Wales?

Mr. CLYNES: No. Sir. Wales, like England, and unlike Scotland, is subject to the Licensing Acts, 1910 and 1921, and accordingly a single Commission has been appointed for England and Wales and is now at work.

Major OWEN: Is it not a fact that we have different licensing laws in Wales, and is it not also a fact that Scotland has had a separate Commission for that very reason? Why should preferential treatment be given to one portion of the country as against another?

Mr. CLYNES: My answer is that Eng-land and Wales are subject to the same Licensing Acts, 1910 and 1921, and are, therefore, covered by the same Commission.

Major OWEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that in Wales, for instance, we have a Sunday Closing Act, which does not apply to England at all, and that for years there have been representations from Wales for a separate licensing system, which have been entirely ignored in spite of the promises of the Government before they came into office?

Mr. CLYNES: I am sure, so far as any special or separate evidence can affect the position, the Commission will be glad to have all the facts.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that where there is this Sunday Closing Act you can get plenty of liquor all day?

Major OWEN: Is the right hon. Gentle-man aware that the only representative on that Commission comes from Mon-mouthshire, does not know the conditions in the rest of Wales, and does not in any sense represent the feeling of the country?

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake not to waste public money in this way at the request of the Liberal party?

Mr. CLYNES: It will be impossible to have a Commission smaller than a great mass meeting if we are to have representatives of every area.

Major OWEN: May I give notice that I will draw attention to the matter on the Motion for the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity?

Mr. DAY: 36.
asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the many anomalies that at present exist in the licensing laws which govern the granting Of licences to theatres. and of places which are granted singing and dancing licences, he will consider the appointment of a Committee to consider the whole question with the object of recommending amending legislation?

Mr. CLYNES: There are certainly anomalies in the existing law, but I am not aware that they give rise to any very serious difficulties in administration and there are many other matters of more importance which must take precedence.

Mr. DAY: Will the right hon. Gentle-man refer the question of drinking in theatres and music halls to the Royal Commission that has been set up?

Mr. CLYNES: Evidence, of course, will be submitted to the Commission.

BORSTAL INSTITUTIONS.

Lieut.-Cammander KENWORTHY: 35.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is in a position to announce any increase of accommodation in Borstal institutions for young offenders or in the present number of such establishments?

Mr. CLYNES: Progress has been made with the preliminary work connected with the starting of a new Borstal Institution, and the next step will be the drafting of a building party of in-mates selected from the existing institutions to work on the site of the new institution. This step will relieve to some extent the pressure of accommodation, and as work goes on it will be possible to draft increasing numbers to the new institution.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: When this new accommodation is ready, will that provide all the accommodation required?

Mr. CLYNES: I hope so. I do not anticipate any increase in the number of juvenile offenders.

INDUSTRIAL DISEASES (SILICOSIS).

Mr. HANNON: 38.
asked the Home Secretary if he will state, in connection with and in view of the wide scope of the Various Industries (Silicosis) Scheme, 1928, the precise industries, other than the manufacture of pottery and scouring powders and the processes in these industries, in which he has had definite evidence of silicosis, disabling silicosis, or death from silicosis, or of any of these accompanied by tuberculosis, and their number?

Mr. CLYNES: As the answer to this question is a long one, I propose to circulate it with the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. HANNON: Will the right hon. Gentleman take precautions that this Order shall not apply to any industry in this country, embarrassing the process of manufacture, unless he has the clearest evidence of the existence of the disease?

Mr. CLYNES: The greatest care is taken already in the application of the Order. Should any further steps be necessary, perhaps the hon. Member will put down a question after he has read the full answer.

Mr. STEPHEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the interests of the workers are the first consideration?

Mr. CLYNES: That is my first consideration.

Following is the answer:

The following are the particulars (so far as it has been possible to trace them at short notice) of ascertained cases of silicosis which have come during the last three or four years to the knowledge of the Factory Department or the Mines Department in the particular industries or processes covered by the Various Industries Scheme, excluding the potteries and the manufacture of scouring powders:—

One case in each of the following industries or processes—sandgrinding (iron foundry); silica milling (silica flour
manufacture); stone crushing (road making); tin mining; and lead mining. Two cases in millstone dressing (corn millin). Four cases in sandblasting (metal works). Ten cases in stonemasons' work; and 25 cases in coal mining.

There cases are mostly fatal cases where the cause of death was ascertained through a port-mortem examination ordered by the Coroner, and they must not be taken as affording any criterion to the incidence of the disease in the industries or processes concerned or as representing the whole or even the main part of the experience on which this Scheme is founded. It must be borne in mind that the disease is not notifiable as other industrial diseases are and that, as pointed out in the recent Report of the Committee on the Medical Arrangements for the diagnosis of silicosis, the diagnosis of this disease involves expert examination which has not been generally available. As a consequence, except in those industries under the Refractories Industries Scheme in which special arrangements for expert examination have been instituted, the disease has not been diagnosed as such but has been set down as some other form of disease of the respiratory system. The disease has, however, been the subject of extensive medical research for a number of years and much experience has also been gained through the periodic examinations carried out under the Refractories Industries Scheme, and I am advised that the result has been to show conclusively that wherever workmen are subject to certain conditions of exposure to silica dust, they incur a substantial risk of the disease and, in fact, wherever any special enquiry has been held into any process giving rise to such conditions, silicosis has been found to be present to a serious extent. For instance, the inquiry into the Sandstone Industry in 1928 showed that out of 454 workmen examined, 112 were found to have contracted silocosis. The hon. Member will understand therefore that in selecting the industries and processes for inclusion in the Various Industries Scheme, regard was necessarily had not only to the ascertained cases of silicosis but also to the degree to which the workers would in fact be liable to be exposed to silica dust in the particular circumstances of their employment.

VIVISECTION.

Mr. FREEMAN: 41.
asked the Home Secretary the number of dogs experimented on by vivisection in each of the last 10 years or, if the exact figures are not known, can he give an approximate number?

Mr. CLYNES: The information is not available, and it would not be practicable to obtain it.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

NON-PROVIDED SCHOOLS

Mr. THURTLE: 42.
asked the President of the Board of Education the number of children attending Church of England and Roman Catholic elementary schools at 31st March?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Morgan Jones): The number of children on the registers of Church of England schools in the year ending 31st March last was 1,466,721, and on the registers of Roman Catholic schools, 368,386.

Mr. HARRIS: Is the hon. Gentleman able to state how many of these children belong to the particular denominations?

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I really cannot answer that question.

Mr. THURTLE: 43.
asked the President of the Board of Education in how many of the single-school areas of England and Wales the existing school is under the control of the Church of England; and what proportion this bears to the total number of schools in such areas?

Mr. MORGAN JONES: In 7,085 civil parishes in rural districts, and in 133 urban districts, there is only one public elementary school. In 4,851 of these cases, or about 67 per cent. of the total number, the school is a Church of England school.

LOCAL AUTHORITITES' PROGRAMMES.

Mr. SMITHERS: 44.
asked the President of the Board of Education when he expects to receive the programmes of the local education authorities for 1930–33?

Mr. MORGAN JONES: My right hon. Friend has already received a certain number of these programmes, and he
hopes that the remainder will be ready for submission by the end of next month. My right hon. Friend has informed the authorities in Circular 1404 that if there is any likelihood of delay in settling the full three-year programme, he will be willing to accept a partial and preliminary programme or to approve proposals submitted in advance of the programme.

Mr. SMITHERS: When the right hon. Gentleman receives these programmes, will he then be able to arrive at an estimate of the increased cost caused by the raising of the school age; and, further, will he be so good as to let me know when he receives them, so that I can put down a question as to the in-creased cost?

Mr. JONES: The hon. Member can put down a question at any time.

EXPENDITURE.

Mr. SMITHERS: 50.
asked the President of the Board of Education what is the cost per child in the elementary schools of each of the local education authorities in England and Wales; and will he analyse these amounts in any convenient form to show how this expense is incurred as regards teaching, upkeep and equipment?

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I am sending the hon. Member a copy of a statement, published in December, 1928, in which he will find the information which he desires. Similar particulars, for the year ending 31st March, 1929, will be published early next month.

Mr. SMITHERS: Will the hon. Member consider the advisability of circularising this statement to all the local education authorities so that they may see that efficiency does not always mean excessive expenditure in educational work?

Mr. JONES: The information has already gone out, and I have no doubt that they are aware of it.

Mr. SMITHERS: Will you circulate it?

SPECIAL SUBJECTS CENTRES.

Mr. BEAUMONT: 51.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that certain schools become disqualified for special subjects centres
by virtue of taking in senior pupils from neighbouring schools which would other-wise have contributed children to the centre; and whether he will take steps to alter this anomaly?

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I am aware that difficulties of this kind occasionally arise, but I hope that it will usually be possible to find means of surmounting them.

CONTINUATION CLASSES (MAINTENANCE GRANTS).

Mr. BEAUMONT: 52.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he has been approached with a request for maintenance grants for pupils attending continuation classes; and what was his reply?

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I have no record of any recent correspondence on this subject. Local education authorities may, in certain cases, grant maintenance allowances to pupils attending continuation classes.

Mr. BEAUMONT: Such grants, I take it, are recognised by the Board?

Mr. JONES: Yes, I think they rank for 50 per cent. grant under the Regulations.

CHOICE OF SCHOOL.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 53.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he proposes to bring forward legislation amending the Education Act so as to permit parents to exercise a limited discretion as to the public elementary schools which their children shall attend?

Mr. MORGAN JONES: No, Sir. Parents often have a considerable discretion in their choice of school, though this naturally depends on local circum-stances, and the parents' discretion could not, my right hon. Friend thinks, be extended without unduly restricting the powers of the local education authorities.

MARRIED WOMEN TEACHERS.

Captain P. MACDONALD: 54.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether in view of paragraph 10 of Circular No. 1,404, he proposes to bring pressure to bear on local authorities to rescind or modify regulations forbidding the employment of married women as teachers?

Mr. MORGAN JONES: My right hon. Friend has already advised the local education authorities to take into consideration their future requirements before discharging married women teachers, and I have no reason to think that they will fail to take this advice.

LEAGUE OF NATIONS (OPTIONAL CLAUSE).

Captain CROOKSHANK: 45.
asked the Prime Minister if he is prepared to lay papers showing the correspondence ex-changed with the Governments of the Dominions regarding the signature of the Optional Clause?

The PRIME MINISTER: I can add nothing to what has already been said in reply to questions on this subject.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Will the right hon. Gentleman look into this matter and consider whether he cannot lay some sort of White Paper showing what the outward correspondence has been—the dispatches from the Government in London to the Dominion Governments? That would not affect the question of inter-change?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid that it would.

Captain CROOKSHANK: How?

Sir H. CROFT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in fact, the reservations are similar to those demanded by the late Government, or whether they go beyond them, or are less?

The PRIME MINISTER: I can only give the answer which the late Government gave to a similar question—that correspondence cannot be laid.

Mr. SMITHERS: Has the right hon. Gentleman asked the Dominion Governments whether they would have any objection to this correspondence being laid?

Mr. SPEAKER: The Prime Minister has already said that he has nothing to add to his original reply.

DISSOLUTION OF PARLIAMENT (ROYAL PREROGATIVE).

Mr. MANDER: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to con-
duct any inquiry into the circumstances under which advice may be tendered by a Prime Minister as to the exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Dissolution?

The PRIME MINISTER: I see no justification for the institution of such an inquiry as the hon. Member suggests. The constitutional law and practice on the subject may be studied in books of reference which are easily accessible to all Members of this House.

Mr. MANDER: Would it be practicable for Viscount Ullswater's Committee to give consideration to this question, which in certain quarters

Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise.

SCOTLAND AND WALES (SELF-GOVERNMENT).

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is his intention to introduce legislation providing for the self-government of Scotland and Wales?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to a similar question by the hon. and gallant Member for Carnarvon (Major G. Owen) on the 16th July.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Will there be any preliminary declaration as to Dominion status in regard to the matter?

CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS AND UN-EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE,

Commander SOUTH BY: 55.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will consider amending existing legislation in order to make it optional for people to come into the unemployment and con-tributary pensions scheme?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): As regards the contributory pensions scheme I am unable to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member. Parliament has decided that a contributory scheme of pensions for the employed population is necessary, and that decision involves that the scheme should be on a compulsory basis. It is obvious that if an option were given to remain outside, the object which Parliament had in view would not be attained as regards those
individuals who exercised the option. The question so far as it relates to the unemployment scheme should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

APPROVED SOCIETIES FUNDS

Sir K. WOOD: 56.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has now any statement to make with regard to the funds of the approved societies as affected by the Economy Act, 1926?

Mr. GREENWOOD: No, Sir; I am not at present in a position to make any statement on the subject.

Sir K. WOOD: When will the right hon. Gentleman deal with this? Does he remember the statement he made and the undertakings he gave?

Commander WILLIAMS: Am I to understand that the right hon. Gentleman is now condoning what he used to call "robbery"?

MEDICAL BENEFIT REGULATIONS.

Sir K. WOOD: 57.
asked the Minister of Health whether he proposes to make any alteration or amendment in the Medical Benefit Regulations relating to gifts or inducements by chemists of cooperative societies concerning National Health Insurance prescriptions?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The matter is engaging my consideration.

Sir K. WOOD: Surely we must have some real business done in connection with this matter.

INCOME LIMIT.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 59.
asked the Minister of Health if he will consider whether he will appoint a committee to investigate the question of raising the present limit of £250 entitling participation in the National Health Insurance Act to a higher figure more consonant with the existing cost of living?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I will see that the matter is brought to the notice of the committee which is engaged in a survey of the schemes of social insurance.

SEAMEN'S SPECIAL FUND.

Mr. MACPHERSON: 70.
asked the Minister of Health whether he can explain the reasons for the delay in reconstituting the governing body of the Seamen's Special Fund; whether he can say when the provisions of the National Health Insurance Act, 1928, will be funfilled in regard to that fund; and if he is aware that the delay in appointing a trustee of the fund in the place of the late Mr. J. Havelock Wilson involves the fund in expense which would otherwise be avoidable?

Mr. T. LEWIS: 71.
asked the Minister of Health whether he can explain the reasons for the delay in re-constituting the governing body of the Seamen's Special Fund; whether he can say when the provisions of the National Health Insurance Act, 1928, will be fulfilled in regard to that fund; and whether he is aware that the delay in appointing a trustee of the fund in the place of the late Mr. J. Havelock Wilson involves the fund in expense which would otherwise be avoidable?

Mr. GREENWOOD: 72.
I regret that there has been some delay in the reconstitution of the governing body of the Seamen's Special Fund. This has been due to the difficulty of determining to what bodies should be entrusted the nomination of representatives of the various classes of persons entitled to benefit out of the fund. I hope that the new governing body will be appointed and the vacancy in the office of trustee filled within the next few weeks. I cannot think that the existence of this vacancy can have involved the fund in any appreciable additional expense.

Major McKENZIE WOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman place on that Committee a representative of the Scottish fishermen?

Mr. MACPHERSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that it is the statutory duty of the Government to fill this vacancy?

Mr. GREENWOOD: If the right hon. Gentleman will communicate with me I will consider the matter.

Major WOOD: Can I have an answer to my question?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I will consider that point; it is a matter upon which I should have to consult my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

ADDITIONAL BENEFIT.

Dr. MORRIS-JONES: asked the Minister of Health how many approved societies under the National Health Insurance Acts provide facilities for optical and/or ophthalmic advice and treatment for insured persons; whether there are any approved societies that do not provide such facilities; and, if so, whether he will give the names and numbers of such societies?

Mr. GREENWOOD: Consequent upon the second valuation 5,883 societies and branches in England and Wales, comprising nearly 12,000,000 members, have made arrangements to provide ophthalmic treatment, including the provision of optical appliances, as an additional benefit. 1,156 societies and branches, with about 1,700,000 insured members, do not provide this benefit, generally because their surpluses have been used for other benefits. I cannot undertake to give the names of these societies and branches.

Dr. MORRIS-JONES: 80.
asked the Minister of Health how many approved societies under the National Health Insurance Acts provide, or contribute towards, dental treatment for insured persons; whether there are any approved societies that do not provide or contribute towards such treatment; and, if so, whether he will state the number and names of such societies?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The number of approved societies and branches in England and Wales which contribute towards the cost of dental treatment of their members as an additional benefit is 6,545, covering 12,727,000 insured members. Only 494 societies and branches, with approximately 900,000 members, are not in a position to give dental benefit, either because they selected other additional benefits, or because they had no available surplus. I cannot undertake to give the names of these societies and branches.

Dr. MORRIS-JONES: Is he aware that one of the most powerful of approved societies in the country does not contribute towards these additional benefits and treatment?

Mr. GREENWOOD: That may be true, but it is within the discretion of an approved society to choose the form of additional benefits.

WORKMAN'S DISMISSAL, SWANSEA.

Mr. EDMUNDS: 83.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been directed to the dismissal of G. Webber, following his appearance as witness in a case of the prosecution of his employers at Swansea by the Ministry for an offence in respect of health insurance; and if, in order to avoid the intimidation of employés who appear as witnesses, he will consider introducing legislation or take steps to protect employés who are called upon to give evidence against their employers in cases of this character?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I am aware of this case, but I am informed that the dismissal was due to reasons unconnected with the prosecution. In any event, I have no power to take any steps in the matter, and I fear that legislation as suggested by my hon. Friend would be impracticable, if only for the reason that the dismissal of an employé could seldom be connected definitely with the fact that he had given evidence against his employer.

Mr. EDMUNDS: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that in all cases of this kind the reasons given by the employers are not necessarily the prime cause of the man's dismissal?

Mr. GREENWOOD: That may be true, but it is difficult indeed in cases of alleged victimisation for proof to be shown that it was victimisation when any number of other reasons can always be adduced.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

RENT RESTRICTIONS ACTS

Mr. ISAACS: 58.
asked the Minister of Health if, in the proposed new legislation dealing with rent restrictions, he will consider including conditions intended to prevent the charging of excessive rentals for furnished rooms by providing that the charged for rooms and for furnishing shall be separately quoted; and that the rental for rooms unfurnished shall be a fair proportion of the total rental of the whole house?

Mr. CHATER: 60.
asked the Minister of Health whether he intends to intro-duce legislation to make illegal the ex-action of excessive rents for decontrolled pre-War houses and sub-lettings thereof?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I would refer my hon. Friends to the statement made in reply to questions asked by the right hon. Member for Woolwich West (Sir K. Wood) and the hon. Member for Barn-staple (Sir B. Peto) on the 31st October. I am afraid that I cannot add anything to that statement.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Does the right hon. Gentleman not recognise that an immense amount of profiteering is going on and an immense amount of hard-ship, and that this matter does require immediate treatment?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I have already dealt with that point in answer to an earlier question.

RURAL AREAS.

Mr. HURD: 74.
asked the Minister of Health the number of dwellings actually completed at 30th September, 1929, in agricultural parishes under the provisions of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924?

Mr. GREENWOOD: Yes, Sir, the number was 14,487.

Mr. HURD: 75.
asked the Minister of Health the number of dwellings in respect to which grants and / or loans have been promised under the provisions of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926; and the number of such dwellings on which work has been actually commenced?

Mr. GREENWOOD: Up to the 30th September last the latest date for which figures are available, assistance had been promised under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act in respect of 2,200 dwellings. Work had been actually commenced on 2,034 of these and completed on 1,402.

Mr. HURD: Can the right hon. Gentle-man say whether he is considering the importance of expediting the use of the Rural Workers Act by the county councils?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I understand that my predecessor, who was far better able
to exercise pressure on these bodies than I am, tried to do so, but he was not successful.

Mr. GOULD: Would the Minister of Health consider the advisability of transferring the functions under this Act from the county councils to the rural district councils?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The reverse procedure is the operation under the Act.

Mr. HURD: Did not the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor use all the influence he could, and, seeing that new developments have arisen, will the right hon. Gentleman follow that good example?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I have no desire not to make this Act work, if it can be made to work, and I am only too anxious to take what steps I can, but I am doubtful about the results.

BLIND PERSONS ACT.

Mr. TILLETT: 62.
asked the Minister of Health if he is in a position to state the number of local authorities who have made arrangements for promoting the welfare of blind persons under the powers conferred upon them by the Blind Persons Act, 1920, Section 2?

Mr. GREENWOOD: Such arrangements have been made by all the 146 local authorities under the Blind Persons Act.

RATING AND VALUATION ACT.

Mr. MANSFIELD: 63.
asked the Minister of Health if he will consider an alteration being made to Section 11 (1) of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, whereby poor people may be excused payment of rates by the rating authority?

Mr. GREENWOOD: A rating authority is already empowered to excuse the payment of rates on the ground of the poverty of the person directly liable to them for those rates. I cannot hold out any hopes of legislation for an ex-tension of this power in cases in which the rating authority, in the exercise of their discretion under the provisions to which my hon. Friend refers, have re-solved to rate the owners of certain classes of property in lieu of the occu-
piers or have entered into agreements with owners for the payment of the rates.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

ARTIFICIAL CREAM ACT

Mr. LAWTHER: 65.
asked the Minister of Health if his attention has been called to the proceedings at Marlborough Street Police Court on 2nd and 12th July, and the subsequent appeal at the London Sessions on 13th September, when it was decided that the Artificial Cream Act could not apply as the case had not been brought forward by an official of a local authority but by an outside authority; and will he be prepared to bring forward legislation empowering individuals to seek protection under the said Act where county or borough councils fail to carry out their statutory duties?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I am aware of the proceedings referred to by my hon. Friend, but I cannot undertake to introduce amending legislation on this subject at the present time.

VACCINATION.

Mr. FREEMAN: 66.
asked the Minister of Health why the table dealing with the vaccinal condition of cases of small-pox occurring during 1928, which appears on page 105 of the chief medical officer's last annual Report, was limited on this occasion to cases occurring in London and in sanitary districts having a population of not less than 150,000; why the deaths were omitted from the table in question, and how many deaths occurred amongst the cases quoted in the columns A, B, C and D, respectively; whether, in view of the importance of such details being available for a proper consideration of the value of vaccination, he will arrange for the continuance of their publication in the chief medical officer's annual Reports?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The information contained in the table printed on page 105 of the chief medical officer's Report for 1928 was limited to areas of large population because it was found that the value of similar statistics for the whole country was 'altogether disproportionate to the work entailed in their compilation. The numbers of deaths, including the Vol. 231
vaccinal condition at the time of infection, are given on pages 100–02 of the Report. The answer to the third part of the question is in the negative.

Mr. FREEMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman give similar information in regard to other areas?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The whole point is that the compilation of these figures involves an immense amount of work, without throwing very much new light on the information already available.

Mr. FREEMAN: 67.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the deaths of five children within one month following vaccination, namely: Terence Kellaher, five months, vaccinated 14th August, died 15th September; Ronald Whitehouse, five months, vaccinated 23rd August, died 5th September; Leslie Brewer, six months, vaccinated 11th September, died 18th September; Frederick Wright, 11 years, vaccinated in March, died 12th September; and Jackie Balshaw, four months, vaccinated 12th September, died 1st October; and will he institute inquiries as to whether vaccination is one of the contributory factors in the deaths of these and similar cases?

Mr. GREENWOOD: My attention has been called to two of the five deaths referred to which occurred in London, Blackburn, Bolton, West Bromwich and Somersetshire. In neither of these two Was vaccination one of the certified causes of death. In both cases post-mortem examinations were made and inquests held, and the deaths were found to be due to causes entirely unconnected with vaccination. I have no information as to the remaining three cases beyond the death certificates, which show that in two of them post-mortem examinations were made, and in none of the three was there any reason to think that vaccination contributed in any way to the fatal issue. As regards the last part of the question, I may say that all cases, in which death is stated to have resulted directly, or in-directly, from vaccination, are reported to my Department by the registrars of births and deaths, and are made the subject of investigation.

RHEUMATIC DISEASES.

Mr. G. WHITE: 69.
asked the Minister of Health if, in view of the suffering and
loss of national efficiency due to the incidence of rheumatic diseases, he will state what steps he is taking to combat this scourge, by research into its causes, and by the encouragement of local authorities to provide facilities for treatment?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I would refer the hon. Member to pages 222–26 of the Report of the Chief Medical Officer of my Department for the year 1928, in which will be found a statement setting out the steps taken in London and elsewhere to provide treatment for acute rheumatic disease. As regards chronic rheumatic diseases, my Department is in close touch with the Medical Research Council in the matter of research, and I am prepared to give sympathetic consideration to any practicable proposals which may be submitted to me by local authorities for the provision of facilities for treatment.

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether at the present time the Ministry are supplying any money to any local authorities for the treatment of these rheumatic cases.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I must ask for notice of that question.

MIDWIVES.

Viscount ELMLEY: 72.
asked the Minister of Health whether it is his intention to transfer the control of the profession of midwifery from the present board to a Government Department?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I assume that the noble Lord is referring to certain of the recommendations contained in the recent report of the Departmental Committee on the training and employment of mid-wives. These recommendations are under consideration and I am not at present in a position to state what action will be taken upon them.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman be in a position to make a statement before the introduction of the private Members Bill dealing with the subject on the 6th December?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I cannot give an undertaking, but if it is possible to make a statement I shall be only too glad.

FOOD AND DRINK ADVERTISEMENTS.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 82.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has under consideration a proposal to require all advertisements of food and drink to be submitted to officers of his Department before publication for the purpose of deciding whether the article justifies the claims made for it in the advertisement?

Mr. GREENWOOD: NO, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — POOR LAW.

DISABLED EX-SERVICE MEN

Mr. TINKER: 73.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the cost to the Leigh Board of Guardians for the relief of disabled ex-service men and their families during the last six months has been £128, and that the board have carried a resolution asking the Government to institute an inquiry into the payment for relief of disabled ex-service men, as they are of opinion that it should be a national charge; and will he say what he intends to do in the matter?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and to the second part in the affirmative. As regards the third part, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. and gallant Member for Tavistock (Brigadier-General Wright) on the 4th November.

TEST WORK.

Captain AUSTIN HUDSON: 78.
asked the Minister of Health whether stone-breaking is still one of the tasks set as test work in Poor Law institutions?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I do not necessarily get information as to forms of test work adopted by guardians unless the guardians have put in force Article XI of the Relief Regulation Order, 1911. I am only aware of one scheme of this nature which might be relevant to the question. Here the work is quarrying rather than stone breaking. In another union I understand that the guardians have purchased stone to be broken as test work and this practice may still be in operation.

Captain HUDSON: In view of the interest taken by the right hon. Gentle-man's party when they were in opposition, will he make further inquiries into this matter?

Mr. GREENWOOD: If the hon. and gallant Member will give me particulars of any case I shall be glad to inquire into them.

Marquess of TITCHFIELD: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury)?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: May I ask whether the Minister of Health is aware of the widespread indignation in many industrial areas at the useless and degrading tasks set as test work, and will he, in view of his admission that the Government realise that these conditions prevail, cause an inquiry to be made?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I am aware of such case, and I have expressed my view in this House.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that as a consequence of the late Government cutting down the administrative charges, it has prevented them having additional benefits?

Mr. THURTLE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to express publicly his opposition to the imposition of stone-breaking as test work?

Sir K. WOOD: Is it not a fact that there is as much stone-breaking going on under the Socialist Government as ever there was under the last Government?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I have already said that I am only aware of one case where that is so.

CASUAL WARDS (HEATING).

Sir CHARLES OMAN: 84.
asked the Minister of Health whether the casual wards of Carnarvon, Sheppey, and Cardigan are still unheated in winter and were reported to the Ministry as being unheated when the official survey of casual wards was made in 1923–24; and what steps, if any, were taken to induce the guardians to introduce heating during the cold months in these wards?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The official survey to which the hon. Member refers disclosed 50 unheated wards, and as the result of persistent pressure from my Department this number has been
reduced to the three referred to. As regards Carnarvon and Cardigan the absence of heating is only one of the defects of the existing wards, and the question of effecting improvements has been the subject of frequent consideration in the Department and discussion between my inspectors and the guardians. I fear that the only means of obtaining a satisfactory standard of administration of relief to casuals in these two unions is the provision of entirely new wards. In view of coming changes in Poor Law administration and of the uncertainty as to the most suitable sites for the new wards I am not in a position to require immediate action to provide new wards. As regards Sheppey, it is probable that the new Poor Law Authority for Kent will decide to close these casual wards. I am calling on my inspectors to discuss with the guardians immediately the question of temporary provision of heating apparatus.

OPEN SPACES.

Captain AUSTIN HUDSON: 77.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that certain recreation grounds, playgrounds, and open spaces in London are being closed in order that local authorities may utilise the sites for building purposes; and whether, in view of the increasing need for such open spaces in towns and cities, he can take any steps to deal with this matter?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I am not at present aware of any case where in London a public recreation ground, play-ground or open space, has been closed for building. If the hon. and gallant Member will give me particulars, I shall be glad to make inquiries.

Captain HUDSON: Has the right hon. Gentleman any power to deal with this matter if I give him a case?

Mr. GREENWOOD: There are certain powers residing in the Ministry of Health to arrange for the transfer of land to other uses.

Mr. HARRIS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that several squares have been taken for building purposes, and does he not know that there is a general desire in London that the Squares Bill should be brought in soon in order to prevent any more buildings in squares?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I have already undertaken that legislation shall be introduced to deal with the matter.

BUILDING MATERIALS (PRICES).

Mr. SIMON: 81.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the Report of the Committee on the Prices of Building Materials for the three years ending July last gives no information as to whether any prices are unduly high; and whether he will arrange for a further Report giving this important information?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The terms of reference to the Committee require them to report on prices which appear to be unduly high by reason of the operation of any trade combination, trust or agreement. I have no reason to suppose that the Committee have overlooked this part of their reference. They have reported with regard to it from time to time, and I may, for example, draw attention to the account of the special investigation contained in their Fifth Interim Report, to which reference is made in the Report mentioned by the hon. Member.

Mr. SIMON: Is the right hon. Gentle-man aware that the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Sir T. Walters) stated yesterday that building material prices were ridiculously high; and will he investigate the matter, as it is of the utmost importance if you desire to cheapen the cost of building?

Mr. GREENWOOD: It is difficult to make an inquiry into a general statement of that kind. If the hon. Member will furnish me with any particular cases I shall be glad to inquire into them.

SAFEGUARDING DUTIES

Mr. GRANVILLE GIBSON: 85.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if in view of the feeling of uncertainty in the paper industry, he will definitely state his intention with regard to the removal of the duty on imported wrapping paper, which lapses in 1931?

The CHANCELLOR of the EX-CHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): I would refer the hon. Member to the statements made by the Prime Minister and myself on the subject of the Safeguarding Duties during the Debate on the Address, to which I have nothing to add.

Mr. GIBSON: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the failure of the Government to give a definite pronouncement of its intentions in the future in regard to its fiscal policy is creating a great deal of harm in various industries in the country and particularly in the West Riding of Yorkshire; and, further, is he aware of the fact that many extensions of plant and purchases of plant are being held up because of the uncertainty prevailing owing to the failure of the Government to announce their policy?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I am not aware of any uncertainty in the West Riding of Yorkshire. The policy of the Government in regard to the recent application of the Safeguarding Duties to certain woollen textile goods is quite clear and definite. We are not prepared to impose a duty upon that class of goods. It must, of course, be recognised that there is always a certain amount of uncertainty incidental to a tariff policy, and those who desire a tariff policy ought to take that fact into consideration.

Sir WILLIAM MITCHELL-THOMSON: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he does not realise that a large part of that uncertainty arises from the very speeches of himself, to which he has referred; and, further, if he is not aware, indeed it is notorious, that this uncertainty exists to an enormous extent in the motor trade to-day?

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has undoubtedly made up his mind now as to what his probable course will be, why cannot he announce it?

HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is making a speech.

CONVERSION LOAN.

Mr. W. J. BROWN: 86.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the Post Office prospectus in connection with the Five per cent. Conversion Loan was not allowed to be issued before the 6th November, whereas the Bank of England issue was advertised in the Press on the 4th November; why a limit of £1,000 was imposed in connection with Post Office
dealings in subscription issues; and why holders of Five per cent. War Stock and Five and a half per cent. Treasury Bonds, 1930, who desire to convert their Post Office register holdings of more than £1,000 must first purchase an equivalent amount of the new issue?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: In view of the need for secrecy it would be impracticable to have 14,000 post offices ready furnished with forms and prospectuses immediately the first announcement is made. In this case the complete Post Office prospectus was available two days before the list opened.
In reply to the second part of the question, the Post Office accept cash subscriptions from £5 to £1,000 and the Bank of England from £50 upwards. The reason for a maximum limit in the case of the Post Office is that stock on the Post Office register, unlike stock on the Bank of England register, is not liable to deduction of Income Tax from dividends at the source. A limit to Post Office subscriptions is not new and was, for instance, fixed at £200 in 1915. More recently there has been no limit, but the result was unsatisfactory, as some very large investments were made to avoid tax deduction at the source. I am anxious to continue the tax privilege for the convenience of the small investor, but I cannot contemplate leaving it open with-out a limit to individual transactions.
I do not follow the third part of the question. Holders of Five and a half per cent. Treasury Bonds on the Post Office register can convert without purchasing an equivalent amount of the new issue. If their holdings are more than £.1,000 they can transfer the excess to the Bank of England and convert there. The condition that conversion of Five per cent. War Loan is subject to purchase of the new loan is common to both registers.

Mr. HARRIS: Is the right hon. Gentle-man aware that the result of this policy is to give an advantage to big buyers as opposed to small buyers; and will he, therefore, if there is an over subscription to the loan, take steps to protect the interests of buyers through the Post Office?

Mr. SNOWDEN: No, Sir. This condition is a very common one.

ESTATE DUTY.

Mr. SINKINSON: 87.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider the introduction of legislation to empower the Government in the taking of all Death Duties in kind instead of money as heretofore?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I fear that my hon. Friend's suggestion is impracticable.

Mr. W. J. BROWN: 88.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is prepared to consider the introduction of the necessary legislation to authorised officers of customs and excise to administer grants of representation in estates not exceeding £1,000 in value, in view of the depreciation of values since the existing limit of £500 was fixed and the convenience such an extension would confer on the executors of small estates?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I fear that my hon. Friend's suggestion is impracticable. Where Estate Duty is payable on an estate which does not exceed £500 gross a fixed duty is payable on the gross sum; where, however, the Estate exceeds that amount the duty is payable at ad valorem rates on the net value of the estate, i.e., on the gross value less debts, funeral expenses, etc. My hon. Friend will appreciate that the process of converting a gross estate to a net is one which may give rise to complications and differences of opinion and cannot appropriately be entrusted to a local officer of another Department as a matter of routine.

INDUSTRIAL ASSURANCES (LAPSED POLICIES).

Sir BASIL PETO: 90.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the fact that notices are only delivered at houses where premiums are collected and consequently insurance policies are alive; and, as nearly 3,000,000 policies issued by one company, the Prudential, have lapsed within the last three years, will he take some steps to make known to the holders of such lapsed policies their rights under the Industrial Assurance and Friendly Societies Act, which was intended to benefit them?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): The answer to the first part of the ques-
tion is in the affirmative. With regard to the latter part, the matter was fully considered on the Committee stage of the Industrial Assurance and Friendly Societies Act, 1929, when it was decided that it was impossible to give individual notice to owners of lapsed policies, whose present addresses were usually unknown.

Sir B. PETO: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered putting notices in all post offices, in order that the poorer members of the public coming to use those post offices may see what are their rights in this respect?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The matter will be considered, but I cannot hold out any hope that that will be actually done.

Sir B. PETO: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these lapsed policies are worth a small expenditure of printing?

Mr. LAMBERT: Is the statement in the question accurate, that nearly 3,000,000 policies have lapsed within the last three years?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I could not say whether that statement is accurate or not. I gave an affirmative answer to the first part of the question, but as to the actual number I should not like to express a definite opinion.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when the Industrial Assurance and Friendly Societies Act was going through an undertaking was given that, wherever possible, the Post Office would notify these policy holders?.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: There can be no question of notifying individual holders, because their addresses cannot be found. As to the issue of a public announcement, I have said that I will consider that suggestion, but 1 wanted to convey that I am not pledging myself to it.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Is it not a fact that after payments for one or two years at most, fully-paid Prudential policies are given to the persons insured?

IMPORTED BREADSTUFFS.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 94.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will introduce legislation which will compel imported breadstuffs to come here in the form of wheat instead of flour?

Dr. ADDISON: I am not in a position to add anything to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to a question on this subject, asked by the hon. Member for the City of Chester (Sir C. Cayzer) on the 8th July last, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman say if the Government intend to do something with regard to this extremely important matter?

Dr. ADDISON: What we may possibly be able to do ultimately does not arise on this question.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

Mr. MACPHERSON: (by Private Notice) asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury whether any arrangements have been made with regard to the position of Scottish questions on the Order Paper.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. T. Kennedy): Yes, Sir. It is proposed that on Tuesdays the Lord Privy Seal, the President of the Board of Trade, the Secretary of State for War and the Secretary of State for Scotland shall in turn take first, second, third and fourth places in order of answering questions. The new arrangement will take effect from Tuesday next, on which day the order will be: Secretary of State for Scotland, Lord Privy Seal, President of the Board of Trade, Secretary of State for War. This arrangement will not affect the existing practice under which the group of questions addressed to the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary to the Treasury commence at No. 45 on Tuesdays.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if Tuesday is not the only day of the week on which Post Office questions stand a chance of being reached; and, in view of the fact that, as I well know, there are generally a large number of such
questions, will he give attention to the fact that if Scottish questions are to be put in this order, very probably the same difficulty which has arisen in the case of Scotland will now arise in the case of the Post Office?

Mr. BARR: Are not Scottish questions out of all proportion more important than Post Office questions?

Mr. FREEMAN: Will copies of this list be sent to each Member of the House?

Mr. KENNEDY: Copies will be sent to each Member of the House.

Mr. REMER: Will the hon. Gentleman use his influence with the Lord Privy Seal to get the right hon. Gentleman to answer his questions more quickly next Tuesday?

Mr. THORNE: Would it put Ministers to any inconvenience if questions were put down to be answered on Friday?

FISHING FLEET DISASTER.

Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is now able to supply fuller particulars of the losses sustained by the Scottish fishing fleet at Yarmouth and other ports, through the disaster which occurred on Monday; and whether he hopes to be in a position to make an early statement as to the steps which will be taken to meet the urgent need of the fishermen who have suffered loss.

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. William Adamson): The result of my further inquiries is, generally speaking, to confirm the information which I gave to the House yesterday, subject to the remark that the loss of nets will probably prove to be somewhat greater than the estimate which I have already made in this House.
A number of the drifters went to sea yesterday to search for the lost gear, any they were assisted by His Majesty's ship "Sutton," which has been engaged on fishery duties. In very few cases was the gear recovered, and as a rule the nets which have been found are torn and useless.
The names of the two vessels which were lost are the steam drifter "Love-dale," of Banff, and the motor drifter "Tweedside," of Buckie.
In regard to the last part of the question, that is a matter which is engaging my attention.

Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the commodore of this fleet was not equipped with wireless apparatus, so that he might know of the change in the weather at early notice?

Mr. ADAMSON: I should like notice of that question.

Mr. MILLAR: With a view to allaying the great anxiety which prevails among the fishermen, many of whom have been ruined by this disaster, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that he will be in a position to deal with the question of relief early next week and to make a statement on Monday or Tuesday?

Mr. SAMUEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration this proposal, that it should be made compulsory on one vessel in each of these fishing fleets to be equipped with wireless?

Mr. SPEAKER: It is rather early yet to go into that question.

Mr. BOOTHBY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the fishermen at the moment are in such dire straits that the bulk of the fleet cannot put to sea at all, and in view of the urgency and the real necessity of giving some assistance to these men towards repairing their vessels, will he give an undertaking to make a statement of the Government's policy on Tuesday next, if we put a question down for that day? That will give him some days to consider the matter.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Has the right hon. Gentleman sent down any representative to consider the whole situation, and is he also taking into consideration, not only the gear, but the personal position of the fishermen who were damaged?

Major McKENZIE WOOD: Has the right hon. Gentleman had any communication from the Fish Trade Association at Yarmouth to-day and what action does he propose to take with regard to it? Further, if it is proposed, eventually, to take any steps to assist these men in the purchase of new gear, will adequate steps be taken to see that the gear manufacturers do not put up their prices?

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to make as full a statement as possible on Tuesday with regard to his proposal, so that it may be debated on Wednesday?

Mr. ADAMSON: I am well aware of the things that have been mentioned in the considerable number of supplementary questions that have been put. As I have already stated to the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Millar),.these matters are all engaging my attention at the moment, and I do not think I can add anything further to what I have already said.

Mr. BOOTHBY: Can the right hon. Gentleman not answer my question as to whether he can give a statement on Tuesday, as it is a question of immediate assistance? It is no good waiting any longer.

Mr. ADAMSON: I am quite as well aware of the urgency of the case as is the hon. Member.

Mr. BOOTHBY: I cannot do anything, but you can.

Mr. ADAMSON.: I have already said that the matter is engaging my attention and will be dealt with at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. SKELTON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if on the occasion at least he will stir himself out of the lethargy——[Interruption.]

Mr. BOOTHBY: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply of the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Major WOOD: On a point of Order. We have had a very important question discussed, which is of the greatest importance to some of us here. Most of the men implicated in this disaster are constituents of mine. Like some others, I have not got an answer to my question, for a reason which is becoming very frequent in this House. Some other hon. Member gets up and asks a question before the previous one is answered, and the result is that the first question, which may be a very proper question, never gets an answer at all. I submit that this is getting very frequent in this
House, and many Members who are trying to obey your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and conform to the rules of the House do not get an opportunity of putting their case. I protest against this, and I ask that we should get protection, particularly those of us who have to sit at this end of the House.

Mr. SPEAKER: I can only recommend the hon. and gallant Member to appeal to his fellow Members on that subject.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (OFFICIAL REPORT).

Mr. FOOT: On a point of procedure as to the publication of the OFFICIAL REPORT, I see by the OFFICIAL REPORT of to-day that in it are included, not only yesterday's proceedings, but part of the proceedings which lasted through the night before. The Division Lists are set out until, I think, about One o'clock in the morning, but there are 10 subsequent Divisions where simply the figures are given and the names are not entered. As some of those Divisions were dealing with very important matters, and any one Member of the House may be challenged at any time as to the position he took in relation to them, may I ask that steps may be taken to ensure that all the Division Lists may be entered, inasmuch as there are 10 Divisions, I think, for which no names are published?

Mr. SPEAKER: I understand that through some circumstance over which the printers have no control, they could not publish these lists in the OFFICIAL REPORT which appeared this morning, but these lists will appear in the one that is being printed to-day.

Sir HUGH O'NEILL: I desire to raise a point of Order, or rather a point of procedure or practice, arising out of an incident which occurred yesterday in the House, when the hon. Member for Devon-port (Mr. Hore-Belisha) drew attention to the fact that the OFFICIAL REPORT of an answer to a question in this House had been altered after the question was answered and before the OFFICIAL REPORT came out next day. I should like to make it perfectly clear that I do not wish to cast any reflection or aspersion whatever upon the hon. Member concerned, namely, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, because he explained with the
utmost frankness exactly his attitude about it, and said, quite openly, "I altered what I actually did say into what I ought to have said." It seems to me that, if the matter is to be allowed to rest there, the whole question of the OFFICIAL REPORT is in a very unsatisfactory position. Surely, if we are going to have official reports in this House, they should be reports of what is actually spoken in the House. Those Members who have been in the House for some time, as I have, have often heard the remark thrown across the Floor of the House after some dispute as to what was said, "Oh, we shall see it in the OFFICIAL REPORT in the morning." Surely, that ought to be the test. The OFFICIAL REPORT ought to be a kind of arbiter whose relentless accuracy is beyond any question. That being so, I do ask you for a statement in the general interests of the House.
There is one other point that I wish to mention. If Members can correct their speeches and entirely alter the sense of their speeches before the OFFICIAL REPORT is printed, surely that is throwing a very difficult task upon the Editor of the OFFICIAL REPORT, and upon the official reporters. After all, the Editor of the OFFICIAL REPORT, as an officer of this House, occupies a position of great responsibility. His duty is to see that the records of this House are accurately reported. In regard to all these matters that I have raised, I desire to ask these questions: (1) Whether it is the fact that the OFFICIAL REPORT should be an exact record of what is actually spoken in this House? (2) If so, to what extent is a Member entitled to make alterations in the transcript of the Report before it is printed? (3) Is the Editor of the OFFICIAL REPORT bound to accept any corrections which a Member might make, even though there is no question of the accuracy of the transcript?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Amman): As my name has been mentioned, I think I should be allowed to say a few words. It is only fair to state that I might have been notified that this matter was to be raised to-day. I want to point out that the position is not quite as it has been stated by the right hon. Member who has just spoken. The matter to which I referred yesterday arose in this way: Owing to the confusion and noise, an announce-
ment was not heard in the Gallery, and a slip was sent to be filled in. That was the position. The other thing is that it is not quite the case that there was a misstatement. As the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) will bear in mind, there was, as he showed by his next supplementary question, some confusion between him and myself as to the nature of the question asked and my reply. The hon. Member said that I was confusing two things, employment and engagement. Therefore, the confusion arose. It is not a question of altering that has arisen in this connection, as has been stated by the hon. Member who has just sat down.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I would like to say, as I said yesterday, that of course I accept entirely what the Parliamentary Secretary says. I put to him a question, and in reply he made the statement that the number of persons employed in the dockyard was twice as great as before. When he made that statement, I felt that he was making a quite excusable mistake, and, because I knew that the statement would be circulated, I asked him two supplementary questions upon it. My supplementary questions appeared in the OFFICIAL REPORT, but the Parliamentary Secretary's answers did not appear as they were given in the House at the time. Therefore, my supplementary questions looked positively ridiculous in the OFFICIAL REPORT. If I had been consulted when the transcript was sent down to the Parliamentary Secretary, I would willingly have made any arrangement that would have suited the hon. Gentleman, so that both our statements would at any rate have been consistent. I quite realise the circumstances in which this particular statement was made, and I entirely realise that the right hon. Gentleman who has raised this matter is raising it purely as a matter of principle and not in relation to any particular personalities concerned.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: Further on a point of Order. Do you, Mr. Speaker, approve of arrangements being made between the Labour party and the Liberal party as to what is to appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

Mr. SPEAKER: Questions were put to me yesterday by the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha), and, as I
had not had any notice of them, perhaps I did not make myself quite clear in the Ruling that I then gave. On the other hand, I am sure hon. Members will realise that to give a definite Ruling on all the circumstances that have been raised this afternoon would be a very difficult thing to do. Anybody who knows the difficulties connected with the reporting of the OFFICAL REPORT will fully realise that.
But I shall be glad to give some Ruling on the questions put to me by the right hon. Member for Antrim (Sir H. O'Neill). As regards the first question that he raised, it is, unfortunately, the case that it is not given to all Members to speak with the grammatical precision which is desirable when the spoken word has to be transcribed for the OFFICIAL REPORT. An hon. Member obviously is entitled to correct an error which arises in his speech and to put the speech in grammatical form, but at the same time it is often the case that an hon. Member is imperfectly heard in the Gallery and that a word, perhaps a very important word, is omitted from his speech. Obviously, again, he is entitled to insert that word if it has been spoken in the House and has not been heard in the Gallery. I am ashamed to say that that has happened to myself.
As regards the last question which the right hon. Gentleman raised, if any great difference occurs between what is reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT and what an hon. Member thinks ought to be there, inquiries by the reporters in the Gallery are made, and great care is taken that no untrue report appears in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I think the House will generally recognise and be aware of the immense difficulties of the reporters in the Gallery in making their reports. I think it will also be generally agreed that they do their work with great efficiency and to the satisfaction of all Members of the House. I should be very sorry, by any definite Ruling that I gave here, to make any alterations in the existing system, which, as far as I am aware, has for many years been giving entire satisfaction, as I feel sure it will continue to do in future. I feel sure, too, that Members will fully realise their responsibilities.

Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It will be within your recollection that in former
days the practice prevailed of indicating by 'an asterisk attached to the report of a speech any report which had been corrected by the Member concerned. I believe that that system was instituted by Mr. Gladstone when he found words quoted against him which he was certain that he had never approved. Accordingly, this practice continued for many subsequent years; a star was put against any speech which the Member who delivered it had thought proper to correct. That arrangement had the additional convenience that it absolved the Member whose speech was not so starred from responsibility for a report which, owing to the accidents of which you have spoken, might not be entirely accurate. I believe that the system broke down, because at a certain stage the then Editor of the Parliamentary Report undertook to put a star beside, not every speech which had been corrected, but every speech of which he had received no corrections, thus falsifying the entire intention of the star. I ask you to consider, perhaps 'after consultation with other authorities in the House, whether it might not be desirable to revive the practice of marking with a star those speeches which have been corrected by their authors.

Sir H. O'NEILL: Are we to understand, Mr. Speaker, from what you have just said that a distinction should be drawn between what may be called mere alterations of grammar and alterations in speeches which really change the whole sense of what was spoken?

Mr. DICKSON: On the question of literal reporting, so far as verbal and grammatical substance is concerned, is it not the case that at least 50 per cent. of the coherent and readable speeches which appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT are the work of the gentlemen in the Gallery 'and not the delivery of the Members of the House?

Mr. WALLHEAD: Is it a desirable practice that sentences should be omitted from speeches made by Members on one side of the House or the other?

Mr. SPEAKER: I thought I made that clear in my statement just now. Any real alterations of meaning are not allowable.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I was not referring to the alteration of a word, but the omission of whole sentences. I have noticed it myself.

Mr. SPEAKER: That would alter the meaning, I think.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: Would the Prime Minister kindly state what will be the business next week?

The PRIME MINISTER: On Monday and Tuesday the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Bill will be further considered, it being understood that all stages of the Bill will be completed by Tuesday night. It is proposed to put down also on Monday the Committee stage of the Money Resolutions relating to the Highlands and Islands (Medical Service) and to Coast Erosion; and on Tuesday the Report stage of those two Resolutions.
On Thursday there will be the Second Reading of the Unemployment Insurance Bill, and the Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution will be taken.
On any day, if time permits, other Orders will be taken.
Let me say, by way of explanation, that it is hoped that the Unemployment Insurance Bill will be circulated with an explanatory Memorandum with tomorrow morning's Votes, and that the Money Resolution will be on the Paper at latest by Tuesday of next week.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Does the Prime Minister propose to take the Highlands and Islands Resolution early in the day? Or is it to be taken late?

The PRIME MINISTER: That would be quite contrary to the arrangement that has been entered into.

Mr. BALDWIN: I would like to make one observation on Business. It is impossible for us to say, until we have seen the Unemployment Insurance Bill and the Financial Resolution, whether in our view the time allotted will be sufficient. I would point out to the House that it was the general practice when we were in office to take the Financial Resolution after the close of the Second Reading, or immediately following, but in any case,
where the Financial Resolution was one which raised a very important issue in itself, we always gave it more time. With reference to this particular Bill, I can only say, not having seen it, that it is obvious that it is a Bill which will cover a good deal of ground, and there will be a number of questions in it which raise matters of genuine and legitimate interest in all quarters of the House, and it seems to me that there will be very ample material to discuss on the Bill during the period allocated to the Second Reading. Therefore, the Financial Resolution, which may raise a very important issue, and one which forms only a small part of the Bill itself, will probably require a great deal more time for discussion than will be possible if it is taken after Eleven o'clock.

The PRIME MINISTER: All these points were considered, and all that I have announced is that Thursday is to be allocated to this Bill. We will see when the Bill is circulated what will suit the convenience of all sides.

Mr. BALDWIN: That may be quite right, but I only want to enter my caveat.

Sir K. WOOD: Is it not a little unfair, inasmuch as we have undertaken to complete on Tuesday the final stage of the Widows' Pensions Bill, to take other Orders?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the wording of my reply:
It is proposed to put down also on Monday.
The right hon. Gentleman will find that we have no intention of doing anything except to carry out the arrangements, not only in the letter, but in the spirit.

Sir K. WOOD: Will the Prime Minister be present, if he can, on Tuesday for the Third Reading of the Widows' Pensions Bill, in order to deal with certain pledges of his which have been the subject of debate during the earlier proceedings on this Bill?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: In order that there shall be no misunderstanding, may I ask if the intention is to put these Orders on the Paper, but not to take them after Eleven o'clock?

The PRIME MINISTER: My intention was to give notice that these Orders will be on the Paper. The Highlands and Islands (Medical Service) Bill is a very urgent Measure; so is the Coast Protection Bill, and as soon as this notice is given, I hope that the usual machinery will be put into operation for discussing these Orders.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: We have given an undertaking that we will facilitate the business in order to get all the stages of the Widows' Pensions Bill through by Tuesday night, and it is largely for that purpose that the right hon. Gentleman has put down the Motion to suspend the Eleven o'clock Rule to-night, and proposes to put it down on Monday and Tuesday. Under these circumstances, it is unfair to the House to take other Orders.

The PRIME MINISTER: That is what I meant when I said that we will carry out not only the letter but the spirit of the arrangements. If they meet with any serious opposition, these Measures will not be taken.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The Prime Minister has said that the Unemployment Insurance Bill is to be circulated to-morrow with the Papers, but the practice that Bills are given first to Members of the House is being constantly evaded by the Press publication of the particulars of Bills before Members of the House receive them. If the Press publication of the contents of this Bill be correct, there is the possible fact that the opposition is not likely to be confined to one quarter of the House and that the opposition will be considerable and sincere from other quarters, and, in view of that fact, will the Prime Minister reconsider taking the Second Reading Division after one day, and extend the Debate to two days?

The PRIME MINISTER: If my hon. Friend will look in the OFFICIAL REPORT, he will see that the question which he has put is covered by an answer which I have just given. With regard to leakage to the newspapers, the Government have more reason for complaining than anybody, and I know nothing what-ever about it. This is the first I have heard of this leakage, but it has not occurred merely in relation to this Bill.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the official organ of the Labour party to-day—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is not an official organ!"] There used to be one. In that paper to-day, there is what is given as an authentic outline of the particulars of this Bill, and I ask whether, in view of the fact that that could have been got from only one source, any steps can be taken to stop the practice of handing to other bodies particulars of a Bill which ought to be given to Members first?

The PRIME MINISTER: No hon. Member of this House has any right to accuse by implication any person or body of persons for having done a wrong thing. The Bill, or the contents of the Bill, have not been circulated by the authority of the Government.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I wish to associate myself with the cautionary observations made by the Leader of the Opposition, that it must not be assumed that hon. Members in this quarter of the House will be satisfied with one day's Debate until we have first seen the contents of the Unemployment Insurance Bill. We should also like to know whether the Financial Resolution is a serious commitment. If it is a serious financial commitment, we should not agree to it being taken late at night without any discussion.

The PRIME MINISTER: I think that I have made myself perfectly clear on that point.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Proceedings on the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Bill have precedence this day of the Business of Supply and be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

Mr. BALDWIN: May I ask whether it is intended to sit late, or whether this Motion is merely intended for the convenience of the House?

Mr. BUCHANAN: On a point of Order. Hitherto, as far as I know, Mr. Speaker has ruled that there can be no discussion on this Motion. Does that practice still continue?

Mr. SPEAKER: Under the Standing Orders, this particular Motion cannot be debated, and, if there be any question on it, it must not be in the form of a Debate.

The PRIME MINISTER: This Motion has been put down merely for the purposes of convenience. What I should like to see arranged with the other parties is how we are going to take the other stages of the Bill. The pledge has been given that this Bill will be carried through on Tuesday night, and I should like the other parties to inform us what they would like to do, how far they would like to go to-night, and so on, and I can assure them that that would be carried out. I want to suit the convenience of the House, and the Eleven o'clock Rule is to be suspended to enable the House to be free to make convenient arrangements.

Mr. BALDWIN: We will not challenge the Motion.

Question put, and agreed to.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Bill have precedence this day of the Business of Supply and be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).

FAIRS BILL,

"to amend the Law relating to fairs," presented by Mr. Groves; supported by Sir' Walter de Frece, Mr. Hore-Belisha, Mr. John Jones, Mr. Grundy, and Mr. George Hirst; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 17th December, and to be printed. [Bill 69.]

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.

(Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with.)

Mr. SPEAKER: laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Gosport Extension) Bill.

Bill to be read a Second time To-morrow.

CHAIRMEN'S PANEL.

Mr. Frederick Hall reported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had appointed Mr. James Gardner to act as Chairman of Standing Committee B (in respect of the Poor Prisoners' Defence Bill and the Tolls Bill).

Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A

Mr. Frederick: Hall reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A (added in respect of the Coast Protection Bill): Mr. Stephen; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Sinkinson.

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Mr. Frederick: Hall further reported from the Committee; That they had nominated the following Members to serve on Standing Committee B: Mr. W. M. Adamson, Mr. Baillie-Hamilton, Mr. John Baker, Lord Balniel, Mr. Beaumont, Captain Sir William Brass, Mr. Brockway, Mr. Brothers, Mr. Carter, Captain Cazalet, Mr. Clarke, Mr. Dallas, Dr. Vernon Davies, Mr. Ebenezer Edwards, Mr. Fison, Dr. Forgan, Mr. Glassey, Mr. Grundy, Mr. Hannon, Mr. George Hirst, Sir Joseph Lamb, Mr. Lawrie, Miss Jennie Lee, Mr. McElwee, Mr. Marjoribanks, Mr. Messer, Dr. Morris-Jones, Dr. Peters, Sir Assheton Pownall, Mr. Ramsay, Mr. Rosbotham, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Frank Smith, Mr. Somerset, Mr. D. G. Somerville, Commander South by, Mr. Oliver Stanley, Captain Waterhouse, Mr. Wells, and Mr. Reginald Young.

Mr. Frederick: Hall further reported from the Committee; That they had nominated Standing Committee B as the Committee on which Government Bills shall not have precedence.

Mr. Frederick: Hall further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to Standing Committee B (in respect of the Poor Prisoners' Defence Bill): Dr. Ethel Bentham, Mr. Ernest Brown, Mr. Clynes, Sir William Greaves-Lord, Sir Gerald Hurst, Mr. Lang, Mr. Lloyd, Mr. Macquisten, Mr. McShane, Mr. Wardlaw-
Milne, Sir Robert Newman, Mr. Short, the Solicitor-General, Mr. Turton, and Sir John Withers.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS,

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to Sheppey Water." [Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Sheppey Water) Bill [Lords.]

Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to con-firm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to Knebworth Water. [Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Knebworth Water) Bill [Lords.]

And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to Bristol Water and Ross Water." [Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Bristol and Ross Water) Bill [Lords.]

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Sheppey Water) Bill [Lords],

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 66.]

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Knebworth Water) Bill [Lords],

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 67.]

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Bristol and Ross Water) Bill [Lords],

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 68.]

Orders of the Day — WIDOWS' ORPHANS' AND OLD AGE CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS BILL.

Considered in Committee. [Progress, 12th November.]

[Mr. DUNNICO in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Extension of right to widows' pensions.)

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: I beg to move, in page 2, line 20, at the end, to insert the words
or
(c) the widow of a man who owing to his death has not been able to pay the whole of the contributions which other-wise would have entitled her to a pension under the principal Act.
This is an important Amendment, and illustrates what I have always described as the gross injustices of this Bill. It will definitely bring to the mind of the Committee the fact that the major proposals in this Measure will create many and considerable new grievances. These anomalies are inevitable when we depart from the contributory principle. We find, side by side, vast numbers of people paying compulsory contributions under the provisions of the main Act, and a number of people arbitrarily chosen to receive, without any contribution, a free gift from the State. This Amendment is designed to include among those who are to receive a free pension of 10s. a week the widow of a man who, owing to his death, has not been able to pay the whole of the contributions which otherwise would have entitled her to a pension under the principal Act. Of course, under the principal Act there are quite properly, as is found in every compulsory insurance scheme, certain regulations, some of which are designed under the advice of the actuary, as regards contributions and the number of them which have to be paid before a pension is granted. Under the scheme in the principal Act, the number of contributions to be paid by a man before his widow can qualify for a pension is 104.
When you have made that statement and look at the position of two groups of people who are involved, both in the
same section of the community, and both in what we may call the insurable class, you certainly see a very astonishing state of affairs as a result of the Government proposals. If you had maintained the contributory system, which has been the policy of the Conservative party and is, I understand, the official policy of the Liberal party, this difficulty, or, rather, this injustice, this anomalous position, would not have arisen; but we find ourselves in this situation. There may be a man who has been contributing under the principal Act but who has paid only 50 or 60 out of the 104 contributions before his death, and in that case his widow will receive no pension. On the other hand, if this Bill become law, another widow, one of the 400,000 or 500,000 who are the subject of this gift, whose husband has paid no contributions, will receive a pension.
I am not putting an extreme case. If I wanted to submit an extreme instance, there is the case of a person who has paid every contribution but one, and dies; his widow will get no pension through his failure to pay one contribution only. On the other hand there will be a widow, probably living in the same street, who has received a pension although her husband paid no contributions at all. There is also the case, which shows a graver injustice still, of the man who becomes a voluntary contributor. He has been invited to do so by the State, and not only has he paid his own contributions as a worker, but he has paid the employer's contributions as well. If through some mischance, some failure, perhaps, on his part, or his death, he does not pay the requisite number of contributions, his widow loses the pension, and yet another widow, in exactly the same social position in life, receives under these unfair and unjust proposals of the Government, a pension as a free gift
I want to make my position perfectly plain. I am moving this Amendment more particularly to call attention to the grave injustices which are created by this scheme, and, I hope, with the support particularly of Members of the Liberal party. If we had been able to pass the proposal to impose a test, in accordance with the pledge of the Prime Minister, there would have been some money available for widows of this class. In the next 16 years a sum of £80,000,000
is to be devoted to one particular section of the community. I have always said, and I have not yet heard any argument to controvert it which has impressed me, that if that sum of £80,000,000 is to be given as a free gift it ought to be given to all equally deserving members of the community, and the class to which I have referred certainly ought to come in for a share.

Mr. KELLY: Hear, hear!

Sir K. WOOD: I am glad to hear the hon. Member, even though it is rather late in the day, supporting that proposal. I warned him and other hon. Members when they let the Financial Resolution go by without protest on their part that we should inevitably find ourselves in the position we are in this afternoon.

Mr. KELLY: Will you allow me?

Sir K. WOOD: No. The hon. Gentleman can reply later. I am anxious that he should contribute to our Debates.

Mr. KELLY: I spoke yesterday.

Sir K. WOOD: We are in this unfortunate position that by a majority of this House the £80,000,000 has gone to one section of the community alone. At that time I endeavoured to get the House—and I appealed to the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown)—to say that if we could not get a fair division of this £80,000,000, we should at any rate endeavour to save some of the money by imposing the test which the Prime Minister himself had suggested. In that way we might have had something to give to people of the class referred to in this Amendment. But perhaps I did not present the case as forcibly as I might have done, and at any rate I did not get the support of hon. Members to whom I thought I could look. Therefore, we find ourselves this afternoon in this un-fortunate position, that we have not been permitted by the Government to make a fair apportionment of this £80,000,000.
For some reason which has not yet been explained, but which may be explained on Third Reading, nobody knows even now why the Minister of Health seized on a particular class of women—widows, 55 years of age—and said that all over that age were to have this £80,000,000. Nobody can conceive why that was done, especially when one remembers, as I dare say you will recollect,
Mr. Dunnico, that when the main Act was discussed we were told there were many more hard cases and sections of the community suffering much more than widows were.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think the Chair should remember past speeches.

Sir K. WOOD: I will not remind you now, Mr. Dunnico, but I will endeavour privately to refresh your memory; but it is certainly fresh in the memory of many hon. Members present. This particular section of the community has been chosen, and we now see the grave injustice of it. I do not know what the Government's reply will be when a widow says: "At any rate, my husband, who is dead, did make some contributions towards this scheme. It is true that he was not able to complete his 104 contributions, but he did make some payment, and yet I am refused a widow's pension; and next door is a widow who is getting the pension although her husband has not made a contribution towards it." She will probably explain that she has no objection to the other widow getting the pension, but at any rate she will point out that her husband had done his best to comply with the conditions of the scheme and yet she receives no pension at all.
I do not know how that position is to be dealt with. It comes about through the abandonment of the contributory principle. If you do not have a contributory scheme, at any rate you must have a scheme with a test as to means. The Prime Minister was quite right about that. I asked him to-day if he would come here to explain this matter. I asked him to come here on Tuesday to take part in the Debate. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health has not been able to explain it, and I think it would have been a right and proper thing for the Prime Minister, having regard to the pledges he gave to the widows of the country, and the fact that he himself had said—

Mr. SULLIVAN: On a point of Order. Is not this a Second Beading speech?

Sir K. WOOD: If I am not in order, Mr. Dunnico will call me to order.

Mr. SULLIVAN: I am appealing to the Chair. This is a Second Reading speech.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the right hon. Gentleman is out of order, I shall call him to order.

Sir K. WOOD: I hope I shall not offend against the rules of debate. I can quite understand the hon. Gentleman not wishing to hear these words, but I intend to say them, unless the Chairman says I am out of order. I say this Amendment reveals the gross inequalities which have been caused by the Government's proposals, and I await the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman of the case which I have put forward. This is no difficulty of mine. It is no good saying we have caused this difficulty.

Mr. LEE: Yes, you have.

Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Member may have an opportunity to explain how we have caused the difficulty, and if I am speaking again later I shall answer him. Let no one say this difficulty, this injustice, has been created by any action on the part of hon. Members on these benches or by the Members of the Liberal party. It is true that I have had some difficulty in following the actions of the hon. Members who sit on the Liberal Benches. I am not quite clear as to what has been their guiding principle in their discussions on this Bill, but they have no share or responsibility, nor have we, in the creation of the series of injustices revealed by the Amendment. It is certainly the duty of the Minister of Health to give a reply to the case which I have put forward and to state to the Committee what are the reasons which have actuated him in persisting with these proposals when he is faced with such a position as that to which the Amendment calls attention. Hon. Members are smiling to-day, but they will be sorry for it, and there will be many vacant places. I want to know what reply the Minister of Health is going to make.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): We have listened with the usual interest and amusement to the usual speech by the right hon. Gentleman, one of those which sail very near the wind and partake of the nature of what I may call a semi-Second Beading speech. We have had the usual epithets hurled at the Bill: "These un-fair and unjust proposals," references
to new grievances; but no real explanation of what the Amendment is all about. I was not a little surprised when I found that the right hon. Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) and the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken had put their names down to this Amendment. I could have understood it had it been in the names of other less responsible Members of their party, for this Amendment, if it means anything at all, strikes at the very root of the principle on which the Act of 1925 was based, the principle which has been defended in season and out of season through the Debates on this Bill.
This is a frontal attack on the sacred contributory principle. If it is not that, it is utterly meaningless. Presumably—I use the word "presumably" advisedly—the intention of the Amendment is to bring within the scope of this Measure the employed contributor in respect of whom 104 contributions have not been paid. The 104 contributions are part and parcel of the Act of 1925. They were introduced by my predecessor as what he regarded as an absolute minimum stamp qualification for a contributory scheme. What he said, in effect, was that in the Health Insurance Act we required these 104 contributions, and he must require at least that qualification where he was going to give far more valuable rights than are given in disability benefits under the Health Insurance Act. He said 104 contributions was the minimum for any scheme which could honestly call itself contributory. Yet the proposal is now made, after this elaborate scheme with all its statutory provisions has been in operation for some time, to destroy that basis and to pay the pension in respect of people whose husbands have not made the necessary 104 contributions.
Let me go back to the right hon. Gentleman's own Act. The pre-Act widows with children were brought in without any qualifications at all, and why did he propose 104 contributions for the post-Act widow? Because, it being a contributory scheme, he had to have some kind of contribution basis, and it is no more right for hon. and right hon. Members opposite to ask me to give up a contribution test in regard to post-Act widows than it would have been to ask the right hon. Gentleman to do it. If it had been cut down to 100, there would still be the
case of people who had contributed 99. As long as you have a contributory scheme, it must be conducted on insurance principles, and I am not making any alteration in the basis of it. All that I have done in this Bill is to bring within the benefits of the scheme people of the same class as people now under it, and not in any way to alter the financial burdens, because the whole of the additional burden is borne by the Treasury.
This proposal is of an entirely different character. It is to give the widow's pension under a contributory scheme to people who have not fulfilled the contributions. That is obviously absurd, and this Amendment is the more absurd, because, as a matter of fact, 'as it is drafted, it is limited to the voluntary contributor. Is any Member of the Committee going to suggest for one moment that voluntary contributors are to have special advantages over the compulsory contributors? I suggest that cannot be argued. This Amendment, in a word, strikes at the root of everything which I understood the Conservative party to hold dear. It is obviously an Amendment which we could not accept, and, so far from diminishing grievances, if it were put into operation, it would create a new set by making a distinction between the compulsory and the voluntary contributor.

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: The Minister for Health made the case against my right hon. Friend that he had not addressed himself to his Amendment. The Minister himself has skated round the Amendment, introduced a lot of irrelevant matter, and, deliberately or other-wise, has not faced the issue. He says this is a definite attack on the contributory system, but what he was careful to forget is that, by the Bill he has introduced and the Clause we are discussing, he has made the breach himself, and, he having destroyed the contributory principle, we say let us see that as little damage is done as possible. We are doing the best we can to bring this before the Government and the Minister, and they are, with great skill, I admit, deliberately evading the issue.
The point the Committee has to consider is this: you are now placing contributors who have made no contribution at all towards their pensions on the same footing as the class who have been contributing for a long time. That is a funda-
mental difference in the principle and a fundamental injustice to the widows of this country. Why should the widow of a man who has paid 103 contributions and then, through sickness or death, failed to reach the full amount, not receive the pension while the widow next door, whose husband has not paid a penny piece receives the pension? It is a distinct in-justice and the Minister made not the slightest attempt to justify his opposition to this Amendment. He tried to excuse himself by the weak and lame argument that the burden is borne by the Treasury. Where does the money of the Treasury come from? It comes from the taxpayers of this country.
Another point we have to bear in mind is that the more money is used from the Pension Fund, the less is available for future benefits to the present compulsory contributors by increased pensions or diminished age or diminished contributions. To say that this is not injuring the people is a curious argument. I hope the Under-Secretary (Miss Lawrence) if she replies, will devote her attention to the terms of the Amendment and will try to justify the position that the Government are taking up, under which the widow of a man who has paid nothing can get 10s. a week and the widow of a man who may have paid 103 contributions gets nothing because he was one contribution short. The Amendment would relieve a gross injustice and I hope the Minister and the Under-Secretary will remember in future discussion that they have made a vital breach in the contributory principle and what they are doing now is to distribute largesse to those who have paid nothing, and refuse it to those who have paid.

Mr. TINKER: When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woolwich, West (Sir K. Wood) moved his Amendment, I thought he meant that the widows he was dealing with ought to get a pension but he said that he was not pressing the matter. It was only for the purpose of showing up the anomalies created by the Bill. So if we wanted to accept this proposal, the Conservative party would not have brought it in. It would mean laying it down that there need not be a certain number of contributions and thereby undermining the whole principle of the Bill. It is clear there is no intention on the part of the Conservative Members to press this Amendment.

Sir K. WOOD: Give us a chance!

5.0 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: The only purpose is the intention of trying to show us up. The reason this change has been brought about is that the widows aged between 61 and 70 of men who had passed 70 years of age before January, 1928, were debarred from getting benefits under the last Act of Parliament. When hon. Members speak about anomalies, if the Conservative party can justify the many anomalies in their Measure, then I will agree with them on this. The number of anomalies in their Measure which will be removed by our Measure are far in excess of the number contained in our Measure. If there were 101 anomalies in the Conservative party's Measure and there are only about 20 in this Measure, then at least we are improving upon their efforts. The Measure which the Government are now bringing in is a vast improvement on the Measure of 1925, and when the time comes when we have to face our people on the relative merits of this Measure and the Act of 1925, they will say to us, "You have done very well in your Measure, and it is certainly a big improvement on the one which the Conservative party brought in."

Sir ROBERT ASKE: Some of us on these benches feel some difficulty about this Amendment, because we feel that, in principle, there is a good deal to be said for it, but we have as yet not heard what we were very anxious indeed to hear, namely, what the Minister has to say as to the merits of the Amendment. We much regret that the Minister said nothing at all upon the merits of the Amendment. He based his reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood), who moved this Amendment on two grounds and two grounds only: First of all, that this Amendment did not accord with the Act of 1925, or at all events altered it; and, secondly, that it cut across the contributory principle. May I say, with great respect to the Minister, that any argument which right hon. or hon. Members opposite address to the Committee which is purely a matter of criticism as to the comparisons between any Amendment now proposed and the 1925 Act, do not appeal to us at all. We are not in the slightest degree responsible for the 1925 Act, and we regard any such criticisms—and I am
saying this with great respect—as purely debating points, and, so far as we are concerned, as wasting the time of the Committee. What we would respectfully ask for is a statement as to the merits or demerits of the Amendment.
In the second place, with regard to what was said about this Amendment cutting across the contributory principle, we feel that that argument is not sound. The Amendment is still based on the contributory principle; all that it says is that in certain cases the number of contributions required will be less, and it does not cut across the contributory principle, because to bring a man's widow within this Amendment at all he must have been a contributor; in other words, he must have been within the contributory principle.
If I may express the difficulties which we feel, they are these: First of all, we should like to know what the financial effect of such an Amendment would be. Would there be a very large number of widows who would, by this Amendment, be included under this Bill? If the Minister would inform the Committee what would be the financial result, we should be in a much better position to make up our minds. We should also like the opinion of the Minister as to whether that financial result would be quite outside the scope of anything with which the Government would be prepared to deal at this juncture. Those are practical considerations which, as I think the Minister will appreciate, are very relevant on this Amendment.
I wish to add only this with regard to the Measure: We feel that the widows who are included in the Amendment are most deserving of sympathetic consideration by the Government, for the reason that widows who would be included under the existing provisions of the Bill include widows of men who may have paid less than half-a-dozen contributions or may have paid no contributions at all, but the widows under the 1925 Act must be widows of men who were actually insured at the date of their death; in other words, if a man had gone temporarily out of benefit, his widow would not get her pension. The statutory conditions which the widows have to satisfy under the 1925 Act are much more serious than the conditions which are imposed on the widows who come in under this
Bill; because under this Bill, as I understand it, it is sufficient either that the deceased husband should have been insured for a very few weeks only—as long as he was registered it is enough—or if he died before 1911 he need not have been insured at all. Therefore, the position between the two classes of widows is really very anomalous and ought to be rectified, if the cost is not going to be so great as to jeopardise this Bill. That is the great consideration to which I respectfully ask that the Minister should give his careful consideration.

Earl WINTERTON: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) is apparently leaving the House, because I was going to make a few remarks on the attack which he has made on my right hon. Friend the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood). I should like to know what my right hon. Friend has done which is either unusual or in any sense reprehensible. My right hon. Friend has brought forward an Amendment in order to obtain from the Government an expression of opinion, and a statement as to how they reconcile their action in rejecting this Amendment with the attitude which they have taken up on previous portions of the Bill. That is a perfectly legitimate thing to do. It is perfectly legitimate for any private Member of any party—and after all those in opposition, even though they may have occupied positions of great responsibility in a previous Government, are in that sense private Members—to bring forward an Amendment for the purpose of testing the view of the Government and to say at the same time, "We are not prepared to divide the Committee on this Amendment, but we put it forward in order that we may have the answer of the Department.
The hon. Member for East Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Sir R. Aske)—whom I should like to congratulate, if I may do so without impertinence, upon the clarity with which he put his view—has asked, in effect, the same question as my right hon. Friend the Member for West Woolwich has asked. He asked the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, through you, Mr. Chairman, to explain to the House how it is that a Government which has given pensions to persons who have not contributed one penny for them, is able and ready to
justify to the country its action in refusing pensions to widows who may have made, as has been pointed out, no less than 103 contributions. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health said that my right hon. Friend has made a fundamental attack upon the contributory principle. I do not think that he has done so, because the persons who would come within the scope of this Amendment are those who have made some contribution; but whether he has done so or not is entirely beside the point. The point at issue is how the hon. Lady is going to justify this in the country. I noticed at the commencement of the Debate that hon. Members opposite treated the whole matter as rather a derisory one. I do not want to make any attack upon them, but I venture to say that they will not find it so when they go their constituencies.

Mr. TINKER: If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to explain, the point I made was that the right hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) was not prepared to force an issue upon this point; he recognised that it would be met. That was the gibe I made. After all, when an Amendment is made we expect that it is going to be forced to an issue and the opinion of the House tested.

Earl WINTERTON: Quite obviously the hon. Member has not understood what my right hon. Friend has said. He said he was not prepared to go to a Division on the matter, but he wished to know the view of the Government upon it, and how they reconciled what appeared to be two entirely irreconcilable principles; that is to say, how they reconciled on the one hand giving pensions to those who have not contributed, and, on the other hand, refusing pensions to people who have made 103 contributions. I think there will be no difference of opinion in any quarter of the House that emoluments paid out of public funds to people in the country seldom produce any gratitude to the Government. [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite will find that out at the next election. We also know that so-called hard cases and grievances which arise under Acts of Parliament are calculated to do far greater harm to the Government than the good which is done by any benefit which they may have conferred by legis-
lation. There is no difference between the two sides of the House upon that point; everyone knows it. I do not envy the position of right hon. and hon. Members opposite in having, as many of them will have, Communists on their flanks, and having to explain in public meetings that their Government has refused to allow pensions to women who have made 103 contributions but have given pensions to other persons who have made no contributions of any kind whatever.

Captain CAZALET: The argument used by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health that this Amendment cuts across the whole contributory basis of the Conservative Act of 1925, as has been explained from these and other benches, cuts no ice whatever. By the action of the Minister of Health the whole position has been changed, and it is he who is illogical in making such a statement and not we who are illogical in putting forward this Amendment. As one of the irresponsible Members whose name is underneath this Amendment I want to make one or two observations upon it. hon. Members opposite have told us—and I think the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland said it in so many definite words—that they expect to get kudos and popularity at the next election from the passing of this Act. I think they are under an illusion and will suffer a disappointment with regard to that in the course of either the next few months or the next few years; but if they are expectant of getting popularity from such individuals as receive benefit under this Act, they must also take the responsibility for the injustices which it creates. We on these benches know full well that at the last General Election we suffered for anomalies which we admit were created under our Act, but no Amendment which has been moved up to now in the Committee stages of this Bill has displayed and exhibited the gross anomalies which arise under the present Measure to such an extent as has this Amendment. After all, if this Amendment is not one that is suitable for remedying these anomalies, then we who have put our names to it will be quite prepared to accept or consider sympathetically some other Amendment which may be drafted by the Government to remedy this state of affairs.
The right hon. Gentleman said that, on the question of the 104 contributions, we might well take some of those logical arguments which were used by the hon. Lady the other evening when she was defending the figure of 55 for the age. But surely the point is that, as long as you have a contributory system, you can defend logically some figure such as 104, but when you depart from the contributory principle I fail to see how you can find any logical defence for denying a pension to the widow of a man who has not paid his full 104 contributions, while you give it to one who has paid no contributions at all. If I may just ask the hon. Lady a question, is it possible to give us any figure at to the number of applications for pensions that have been made to the various authorities by widows whose husbands had not completed their full 104 contributions? Would the hon. Lady also consider this point? The other evening there was a long discussion as to what constitutes the right of a widow to receive a pension in respect of the war service of her former husband. I would ask the hon. Lady whether it would not be possible, in reckoning the 104 contributions, to take some account of that, and allow the widow to count as contributions so many weeks' service, for instance, in different parts of the Empire. I have in mind two cases, in particular, in my own constituency. There is another Clause in the Bill which extends the scheme within the Empire—

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Miss Lawrence): I would submit that the hon. and gallant Member should wait until we reach that Clause, and that his remarks on that point are not relevant to this Amendment.

Captain CAZALET: I shall hope to have the opportunity of raising the matter then, but I think my remarks are relevant to the present Amendment. In the case of one widow in my own constituency, her husband had only paid 52 contributions, owing to the fact that he had served as an engineer in Africa for some 18 months. After returning to this country he paid 52 contributions, and then died—

Mr. SKELTON: On a point of Order. I understand that the hon. Lady denies that the statement of my hon. and gallant
Friend is relevant, and I would like to ask, now that my hon. and gallant Friend is taking the matter up, whether it would not be worth while for the hon. Lady to listen to him?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order.

Mr. SKELTON: I beg pardon.

Captain CAZALET: If I am out of order in raising the point on this particular Amendment—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Ruling which I gave was that it is not out of order for a Minister to shake her head, and it is not a point of Order to ask why she did so.

Captain CAZALET: I thought that the hon. Lady was discussing the point I was raising with the hon. Gentleman next to her, in order to enable her to give me a satisfactory answer. I am sure I have never failed to get from the hon. Lady complete attention to the points I have raised, and I hope that this one is deserving of her attention. I know that it is quite wrong and makes bad law to generalise from exceptional circumstances, but I do not feel these two widows' cases which have happened to come within my notice in the last few days are exceptional. We on these benches will have to justify ourselves before our constituents—[Interruption.] Yes, and we shall find it very much easier after having spoken on this Amendment from these benches to justify ourselves than will hon. Members opposite. What I was suggesting was that, if an individual had served for so many weeks or months or years in an insurable capacity abroad, within the Dominions, within the Empire

Miss LAWRENCE: On a point of Order. The case of persons who leave the country is dealt with in Clause 3, paragraph (c), and I should like to ask your guidance, Mr. Dunnico, as to whether such a consideration would not properly be taken when we come to that stage.

Captain CAZALET: This, of course, does not refer to people who are going abroad in the future; I am referring to people who in the past have gone abroad, and who have returned to this country and then died. I hope, however, that I
shall have the opportunity of raising the point again at the appropriate stage.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: On that point of Order. Surely, the case which my hon. and gallant Friend has been quoting does come within this Clause. There is no question here of payments being made to persons in the Dominions. This is merely the case of a widow whose husband was in the Dominions, and therefore could not come under the Act until he returned to this country some short time since, after which he died before he had been able to make up the statutory number of contributions. Such a case would, of course, come under this Amendment.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: In that case it would be perfectly in order to raise it on this Amendment.

Miss LAWRENCE: I would press the point of Order, because there is a whole Clause devoted to what may be called in-and-out contributors, and it does seem to me to be be very inconvenient to mix up that question with residence questions.

Earl WINTERTON: May I respectfully submit that, while the hon. Lady may contend all sorts of things, she cannot prevent my hon. and gallant Friend on this Amendment from using as an example people who would be affected by it, such as widows whose husbands have gone to the Dominions and therefore failed to make up the necessary number of contributions? I respectfully submit that the hon. Lady's contentions or wishes cannot affect the question of what is in order or what is not in order.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: In so far as this Amendment raises the question of the widow who loses her pension by reason of her husband not having made the full number of contributions, it will be in order. On the other hand, seeing that the time at our disposal for debate is restricted, I suggest that the hon. and gallant Member should not develop too much the residential phase of this Amendment.

Captain CAZALET: I had already said all that I had to say on that particular point, but I think it shows, if I may be allowed to say so, that the hon. Lady has taken the same attitude as the Minister with regard to this Amendment, and has completely ignored either study or con-
sideration of it. The only other point that I wanted to raise was as to whether it would not be possible, in the case of men who had done a certain amount of war service, to count towards their 104 contributions any weeks of service that they had done during the period of the Great War.

Miss LAWRENCE: That was provided for by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamber-lain) in his own Act.

Captain CAZALET: I am delighted to hear that, because in a very similar case which was raised in my own constituency, where the period of war service had been properly reckoned and tabulated, the unfortunate widow, under my right hon. Friend's Act, has not yet received her pension. The assurance which the hon. Lady has given to me will give me courage to take up the matter once again, and to hope that I shall be successful. I conclude by saying that I think this Amendment has exposed to a greater degree than any former Amendment the extraordinary anomalies which exist under this Bill, and that we on these benches have a perfect right to defend ourselves as we have done to-day and intend to do in the future if we are accused, as no doubt we shall be, of having sanctioned such anomalies. From our point of view and from the point of view of the unfortunate widows who are being most unjustly deprived of pensions, and whose curiosity and wrath and fury we shall have to satisfy, the anomalies which exist under this Bill could not have been better exposed than by the discussion we have had on this Amendment, and I think it will be extremely difficult for hon. Gentlemen opposite to explain those anomalies in their constituencies.

Miss LAWRENCE: I desire to apologise to the hon. Member for East Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Sir B. Aske), but, when an Amendment is put down which is really not a serious Amendment, and upon which those who put it down do not intend to go to a Division, it is only natural that one should treat it, perhaps, a little lightly. We have a contributory system for National Health Insurance, Pensions, Old Age Pensions, and Widows' Pensions, of which the finance has been very carefully thought out.
Parliament chose to make that system a contributory system, and Parliament is, I think, going to choose this year to give out of Treasury money a definite grant to a definite and diminishing class of persons. No embarrassment would be caused by the giving of such a grant to people who in the natural course of things will gradually die off, but our liability under a permanent contributory scheme is quite a different matter, and in dealing with a permanent contributory scheme we are bound by other actuarial conditions than those which govern the cases of certain individuals who are fast dying out.
In all insurance schemes from the Act of 1911 onwards it has been a cardinal principle that there should be a substantial period of insurance, in order that the persons who come in may be effectively insured, and there has been this test of 104 contributions ever since the Insurance Acts have been in force. The object is clear, namely, that there shall be a strict test of bona fide insurance. The hon. Member for East Newcastle said that he did not care in the least what might be put forward by members of the Conservative party or by us with regard to consistency, and that he did not think anything of the Act of 1925 or of the reasons which actuated the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston in passing it. I do not know whether he will take as a precedent the Act of 1911. I have here the Debates on the Bill of 1911, and it is surprising to see how many of these important questions which are arising under this Bill were settled then for good and all. This is what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) on the 17th July, 1911:
We feel there must be a substantial waiting period After all there is a very serious liability incurred in regard to paying a man a pension of five shillings for his life. I do not think the method adopted is unreasonable.… It is quite impossible for us to accept a liability under two years."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th July, 1911; cols. 837–8, Vol. 28.]
When the right hon. Gentleman was speaking of 5s. a week for life, he was speaking of disablement benefit, not pension, but we want to retain that qualification which is the qualification laid down in all the Health Insurance Acts, and was adopted by everyone who had to do with
health insurance, and is the foundation of all insurance systems—a period of insurance.
Now as to the anomalies. All the anomalies occur in the Act of 1925. In the 1925 Act, on the contributory side of the matter, there have to be 104 stamps. For the pre-Act widows there are no contributions. The case is almost precisely the same as ours except that the 1925 Act took insurance at the time of death as the test, we at some time within three years. At present there are people being turned down, or who may be turned down, who have contributed 60, 70, or 80 stamps, and pre-Act widows with children whose husbands never contributed a penny are left in. We have added a greater number of pre-Act widows, that is perfectly true, but the contrast between the woman who has paid nothing, and the persons who have contributed not enough is in the Act of 1925.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Is it not a fact that under the Act a widow only got a pension until her youngest child reached 14½—not a permanent pension—whereas widows under this Clause get a permanent pension?

Miss LAWRENCE: Yes. They get permanent pensions, but the inconsistency remains that the pre-Act widow gets a pension without having contributed a penny, while a widow with children whose husband has contributed 50 stamps gets nothing. This Amendment is put down and is not going to be pressed to a Division, because no man who ever had any serious responsibility with regard to insurance would vote for altering in this way, the main qualification in all the Insurance Acts—the possession of 104 stamps. It is not put down seriously. It is put down in order to have a little conversation.

Earl WINTERTON: Did I understand that the hon. Lady's main answer was that there was inconsistency in the Act and, therefore, no one could complain if, as she admits, there is also inconsistency in this Bill?

Miss LAWRENCE: No. My main theme was that to do away with the 104 stamps would bring chaos into insurance. The second was the line of argument that is called in Latin, argumentum ad hominem.

Mr. SKELTON: I hoped that the way the Government would meet the Amendment would have been to say, "It is impossible to grant it as it stands, but we consider that it is possible to let in this class of widows if they themselves pay up the balance of the 104 contributions." I urge the hon. Lady, and I most earnestly urge hon. Members opposite, to see that if the widows are allowed to pay up the balance of contributions themselves, the contributory principle will be met. Would she still consider, with a view to the Report stage, the adoption of the Amendment under the condition that the widows themselves pay the balance of the contribution? This payment by the widow, or the beneficiary, of an unpaid balance of contributions is already in existence in various parts of the Act. I am tremendously anxious to maintain the contributory principle, but surely that can be done with the greatest ease by allowing widows of men whose contributions are incomplete to complete them themselves. I wish the Amendment had stated that clearly, but even now I wish very much that the hon. Lady would take it into consideration with a view to the Report stage.
There was at the beginning of the 1925 Act some difficulty where widows or old age pensioners were in the position that contributions had not been fully paid up, through default on the part of the employers or the men, or for any other reason. The referees in Scotland, and the Law Courts in England, have laid it down quite clearly that it is within the scope of the Act to let the beneficiaries make up the balance of the contributions and so enjoy the benefit, and if that principle were adopted in this matter we might be able to grant benefit to the widow of a man who, owing to his death, has not been able to pay the whole of his contributions. The idea has been echoed across the House more than once that this is a useless Amendment and is not going to be pressed to a Division. If it enables the hon. Lady to look at it in this way, to stick to the contributory principle but let the widow pay the balance of the contributions, surely it has done valuable work, and I urge her to allow these widows to come in in this way.

Mr. LEE: It is rather difficult to talk about the merits or demerits of the
Amendment, when you know that no one would be more surprised than hon. Members opposite if it were accepted by the Government or carried on a Division. I have risen simply for the purpose of stating one case that has come to my notice which the Amendment would not remedy. I know of a case where a man paid 104 contributions, because he paid a week in advance, but because the 104 weeks had not elapsed benefit has been denied to the widow. This Amendment, while looking at one side of an anomaly, does not touch that point at all. [An HON. MEMBER: "You can put another one down."] The hon. Member is more used to drafting Amendments than I am. If he will put one down I will support it. I think the anomaly is one that should be remedied.

Sir BASIL PETO: I should not have risen but for what the Parliamentary Secretary said with regard to the financial effect of the Amendment, and particularly what the Minister said in answering my right hon. Friend. He brushed aside all question of injustice to the widow and said the Treasury was going to pay the whole cost of these new pensions. Is that so? In the case which has just been brought before the Committee of a man who paid 103 contributions, what becomes of those 103 contributions? Obviously they go into a fund, and you have only to look at the Financial Memorandum to see that the balance in the Treasury is diminishing year by year until 1946. Therefore, it is true to say that any contributions paid in anticipation of getting a pension under the Contributory Scheme where the widow fails to get the pension because enough contributions are not paid are positively being used under the Government's scheme for paying pensions to the widows of men who ex hypothesi could never have paid any contributions at all in respect of that pension.
The Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) asked the hon. Lady whether the portion of her speech in which she said we had in the 1925 Act broken down the contributory system was her principal reason for opposing the Amendment. She said it was not, but she frankly admitted that it was a part of her argument. I followed the argument and I found it
to be exactly the old one we have had again and again from the Minister himself, that the excuse for the whole of this enormous addition of a noncontributory pension scheme is the fact that certain small exceptions to the contributory principle were made by the Act. In fact the argument has been, and was again today, that you may as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb. That old proverb is not nearly strong enough to meet this case. It seems to me that the Government are going on the principle that you may as well be hung for stealing an elephant as for stealing a mouse. A little departure from the contributory principle was made by the late Minister of Health, and a colossal invasion of it is made in the Bill.
Earlier in the Debate, I moved an Amendment to raise the age for benefit from 55 to 60, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) instanced a case that might occur of a widow whose husband had paid a considerable number of contributions and died before the contributory period was completed, and another case, possibly in the same street, of a young widow in respect of whom no contributions at all have been paid. I want to make that point a little stronger. If the Bill goes through without Amendment and we retain the age of 55, we shall have cases, possibly in the same street, of a very much older widow, perhaps 5 or 10 years older, than one who has a pension for which nothing has been contributed, who will be saying, "My husband at any rate paid 100 contributions and would have paid the lot had he not died, and I am 60 years of age, but there is another widow of 55 in respect of whom nothing has ever been paid, and she has been given a pension, and I am denied one." I had cases like this in my mind, although I frankly admit—and I told the Committee so at the time—that in moving my earlier Amendment I was mainly influenced by the colossal burden to be placed upon industry by this enormous free gift of public money. I also had in mind the fact that it would create the anomaly of a younger widow being given a pension at the age of 55 for nothing when widows up to 60 years of age, and even up to 65 would not be getting a pension at all.
I am quite sure that this Amendment is justified, even if it is only to make that
fact clear. As to bringing this Amendment before the Committee and not carrying it to a Division, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Woolwich has made it perfectly clear that Amendment after Amendment has been moved from these benches in order to try to get some sense of proportion into this Bill and to ensure that the whole of the money, the £81,000,000, shall not be given to a small selected class, and given on a principle which is utterly at variance with the contributory principle on which the 1925 Act was based. If we had had any of the Amendments accepted, this and many other hard cases would have been dealt with, and we should have had something infinitely fairer to the whole class of people in the country who need these pensions than anything we shall ever get under the Bill as it is at present drafted.

Mr. KELLY: One might have appreciated this Amendment, moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood), if he had not put any heat into it at all, and if we could have believed that his indignation, when he used the word "scandalous," was real.

Sir K. WOOD: It is real.

Mr. KELLY: When we find that in his statement he informed the Committee that his only intention was that of making a speech—

Sir K. WOOD: No, disclosure.

Mr. KELLY: Making a speech which would be an exposure and that he and his hon. and right hon. Friends have no intention whatever of securing a pension for these people who are mentioned in the Amendment, I think I am justified in stating that there is a want of sincerity and of good faith in his action.

Sir K. WOOD: I must make a personal explanation. I do not think the hon. Gentleman heard all my statement.

Mr. KELLY: I was here the whole of the time.

Sir K. WOOD: I said that if the Amendment which would have imposed a test as to means had been carried, it would have made available a sum of
money for a lot of these hard cases, but that has been defeated by the vote of the hon. Gentleman and his friends.

Mr. KELLY: I quite understand the right hon. Gentleman desires the means test to come in. After his experience with regard to his work on the London County Council, one would have thought that he would have thrown it behind him for a lifetime. It is one of the vilest methods of dealing with pensions to bring in the means test.

Sir K. WOOD: You had better say that to the Prime Minister.

Mr. KELLY: I am saying it to the whole Committee at this moment, and my right hon. Friend is a Member of this Committee, and I hope he hears it quite as well as the right hon. Gentleman opposite. We are asked in this Amendment to agree that widows of those men who have not paid 104 contributions should be entitled to benefit. I agree that these widows should be entitled to benefit. I think that the Act of 1925 was a Measure for which no credit ought to be shown to the late Government.

An HON. MEMBER: There is no credit in this one.

Mr. KELLY: The hon. Gentleman will have his chance, I hope, in a moment. The Measure of 1925 produced an anomaly which there was no attempt to remedy. The tacking of widows' pensions and old age pensions on to National Health Insurance is something which has never been justified. Here we have a continuance of that even in the Amendment which is now moved. I hope that outside this House it will be noted that the Amendment was moved by the right hon. Gentleman and supported by hon. Gentlemen opposite, not with the intention of carrying it, but with a determination not to vote for pensions to be given to these widows. I hope that the Amendment will be forced to a Division. Indeed, I would ask my Front Bench to accept it and extend the pensions. I can put before the Committee many more cases than did the hon. and gallant Member for Chippenham (Captain Cazalet), who was not concerned so much with the giving of the pension judging by his speech, as to see that no attacks should be made upon him. I am sorry that he is not in his place. The whole burden of his story was not the question of pensions and those en-
titled to them, but the effect that this might have when he has to face his constituents. I would make him a present of a few cases which have not been referred to by previous speakers. There are many men employed in the engineering trade who are engaged as outworkers, fitting machinery into factories and various works on the Continent, and who whilst out there are not permitted to pay contributions under Health Insurance. I know of cases of widows who, because of the narrowness and the many restrictions of the 1925 Act, have not been considered as entitled to a widow's pension or even to the old age pension at the age of 65. I agree with this Amendment. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is arranging to carry it to a Division.

Mr. FOOT: I would suggest that the hon. Member might move that the question be now put.

Mr. KELLY: I think that those hon. Members who have not been taking up much time in this Committee ought not to be closured, now that they are taking some part in the discussion. I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will take this Amendment to a Division and enable a greater number of widows—they have not been able to tell us how many—to receive a pension.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: I must say a word or two about this speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly). He must understand that there has to be very great forbearance on these benches if this Bill is to be got through, in accordance with the undertaking, before eleven o'clock on Tuesday night. We resent very much the implication contained in the last sentence or two of the hon. Gentleman's speech. We should have been justified in the circumstances in supporting the Closure if it had been moved while the hon. Gentleman was on his feet. The Bill is not our Bill. It is the Minister's Bill, and it is his duty to assist its progress by silencing if necessary, Members of his own party.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: I beg to move, in page 2, line 20, at the end, to insert the words:
or
(e) the widow of a man who, though not qualified to receive a pension under
this Act or previous Acts is, by reason of infirmity, unable to follow any regular trade or employment and whose circumstances can be proved, to the satisfaction of the Minister, to warrant assistance.
As far as these pensions Debates are concerned, the Government have not accepted any Amendment, as far as I know, of either of the Opposition parties, and, therefore, they may consider granting this Amendment, which cannot in any way be called a party Amendment. It is an appeal—and I think it is an appeal which will be supported from all parts of the House—to assist the widows of men such as teachers, small tradesmen, clerks and men who have not been in an insurable occupation. These men have worked all their lives and have kept their heads above water, but have not had an opportunity until recently of contributing towards widows' pensions. They die and their widows are left to fight on as best they can. The great majority of these men have not had a chance of saving money. Their wives have to carry on afterwards. They may start a small business or they may try to earn their living in any of a hundred and one possible ways. They may be attacked with some illness, they may become infirm. Their only chance of continuing to live will be to go to the poorhouse and get Poor Law relief. Surely, that sort of thing cannot be right. These women are as much entitled to a widows' pension as the women who are being brought in under conditions which obtained 30 or 40 years ago when their husbands might have been engaged in an occupation which to-day would have been an insurable occupation.
6.0 p.m.
The Minister objected very strongly to one of the Amendments on which I spoke previously because, he said, it would mean a great deal of administrative trouble; it would mean appointing special inspectors and increasing the work of his Department. Here is the case of a small section of these women and a very deserving section, and there would be no such administrative difficulties. I would ask him to consider this matter very carefully. It does not mean giving away much, and in view of the very large number of widows—500,000—who are coming in under this Measure, I think he might consider taking in a few more. A large proportion of the
women to whom I refer have no savings at all. They may have had some terrible illness, or an accident, and are unable to earn their own living, and have to subsist on the charity of their friends or have to get relief. At the election the present Government and their supporters told the people that they were going to give pensions to all widows. Was that true or not? It was stated on the authority of the present Home Secretary that they were going to give pensions to all widows, and to increase the amount of the pensions. I appeal on behalf of the widows affected by our Amendment, not from the party point of view but from the point of view of justice. Decent workmen, clerks, teachers and small traders have left their widows unprovided for, and those widows are now too old to work but it may be 5, 10 or 15 years before they are entitled to an old age pension. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give his most sympathetic consideration to the Amendment, in view of the promises that have been made and his own statement in this House that he wants to help all the widows who are in need, need being the real test for pensions.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I do not wish to be thought unsympathetic to the claims of infirm widows, large numbers of whom are in very difficult circumstances. It is true that large numbers of persons who do not come within the ambit of the Bill are in difficult circumstances. I am trying to deal in this Bill with a more or less limited problem. In this Amendment we are going far beyond the real basis of the Bill. This Amendment would bring within the scope of the Bill all infirm widows, subject to their distress which, I understand, is wholly undefined.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: No. There is no means test.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I thought that that was so. At any rate, the Amendment does bring in all infirm widows, whether their husbands were insured or not. The one thing that we ought to stand by in this particular Measure is insurability. This Bill is designed to bring in the widows of the same class of people who are now within the scope of the contributory insurance scheme. Once we get beyond that, it would be an entirely different Measure. When we are told, as
We have been told a large number of times, that we are committed to giving pensions to all widows in need, I can only reply, "Give us time."

Sir K. WOOD: You said it.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I know that we said it. I know that the Prime Minister referred to it. I have never denied it. I should think we were even more deserving of public confidence than we are if we were able to solve all these problems in one Measure. You cannot deal with the infirm widows, whether they are in an insurable class or not, in a Bill of this description. Infirmity does not mean total incapacity. A woman may be infirm and yet able to do something in the way of occasional work. She may be infirm at one time and not infirm at another. Although the hon. Member suggested that this is a relatively small problem and that no administrative difficulties would arise, I can assure him that there would be considerable administrative difficulties. As infirmity passed away the widow would, unless she fulfilled other conditions, no longer be entitled to receive the pension. Other widows would come along and become infirm and would pass within the scheme, and we should find ourselves engaged in fairly continuous inspections of all widows who happened to be infirm—a changing class of widows, some of whom would be getting pensions for a long period, while others would be getting pensions for a relative short period because the pension would cease as the infirmity passed away.
I must insist upon this point, that it is impossible within the scheme of the Bill to bring in people who are outside the insurable class. If we are to deal with that problem we shall have to deal with a large number of other problems at the same time, and it would need an entirely different kind of Measure. It is not that I am unsympathetic to the claims of the infirm widows that I cannot accept the Amendment, but because the measures to be devised for dealing with them are different in character from the Bill now before the House. I hope, therefore, that the Committee will realise that this is an Amendment which cannot very well be brought, logically, within the four corners of the Bill.

Sir K. WOOD: I think my hon. Friend has done another useful service, in addition to the many he has performed in
this House, in bringing forward this Amendment and I think he can be content, having brought it forward, to have on the records of this House the apology—

Mr. GREENWOOD: There is no apology.

Sir K. WOOD: —which the right hon. Gentleman has just given to the infirm widows of the country. It is a very different story from what we have heard before. The last time that the right hon. Gentleman spoke of infirm widows in relation to widows' pensions we heard all sorts of claims made as to why they should receive a pension, all sorts of stories about widows who were bedridden, widows who were struggling along and had nobody to help them or to support them. That was the complaint made in those days. We were told at the time that we did not make any provision for them. To-day, these widows are put on one side by the right hon. Gentleman. There is nothing in this; Bill for them. I think we can very well rest content in preserving the right hon. Gentleman's speech, which will appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT, together with the explanation that he gives as to why provision cannot be made in this respect. We shall be content with that reply and the explanation given.
There is one further point, which has been provoked by the right hon. Gentleman's speech. If he is defending the Prime Minister's pledge, I would invite him when next he gives an explanation to tell us why it was that the Prime Minister did not qualify the pledge in the way the right hon. Gentleman has done today. If the Prime Minister had done so, I think that a good many of the widows would not have been prepared to give the Government the support which they did, in return for the undertaking which he gave. There can be no doubt about it that they have been betrayed. We have had another exposition this afternoon of the attitude of the Government towards cases which they themselves brought forward as deserving, not very long ago.

Mr. HARRIS: I was very puzzled by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. I have been reading the Amendment with ordinary common sense and trying to
understand its simple purpose. The right hon. Gentleman talks about doing justice to widows who happen to be ill, but this Amendment has not to do with the sick widow but with the man who before he died happened to be ill and, because of his illness, was not able to follow his ordinary trade or occupation.

Mr. GREENWOOD: This Amendment strictly refers to people who are dead.

Mr. HARRIS: Of course, it does. The right hon. Gentleman was referring to another kind of Amendment which ought to have been on the Order Paper, but which is not. I respectfully suggest that it would not be difficult to legislate for cases of this kind, which are cases of very great hardship. The man suffered from illness for many years and was not able to earn his living—

Mr. FOOT: Is it in Order for the Committee to deal with an Amendment which would only confer an advantage upon the dead?

Sir K. WOOD: Will the hon. Member permit the hon. Member for Bethnal Green South-West (Mr. Harris) to make his contribution? He has not spoken long.

Mr. HARRIS: I thank my right hon. Friend for protecting me from my friends. He was endeavouring to do that which I was endeavouring to do, and that was to find out what really are the views of the Minister. The fact that this Amendment has been called, is proof that in the opinion of the Chair it is an Amendment of a practical kind, and worthy of consideration. As I understand it, the Amendment aims at protecting the widow of the man who before his death was suffering from illness of such a character that he could not be an insured person. We are right in assuming that during his lifetime his wife suffered from want and that when he died she finds that she is worse off than her neighbour who happened to have been married to a man who was in full employment, and insured, and able to keep her in comparative comfort. That will cause a great sense of injustice and grievance. The whole object of the Bill is to amend the Act of 1925 in order to do away with anomalies, and with a sense of injustice. I am afraid that ii the right hon. Gentleman will not meet the grievance which is sought to be
covered by the Amendment, we shall be creating a fresh sense of grievance. The more widows there are with pensions in any particular neighbourhood the more we shall find that those widows who are left without pensions, where they are deserving of help, will feel a great sense of injustice. This is a good Amendment. Although it may not be perfect in its wording and it might be possible to devise better wording for the Report stage, I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to have dealt with it and not with an imaginary Amendment which has not been moved.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I must express my disappointment at the attitude taken by the Minister of Health on this and on every other Amendment moved from this side of the House, and I am sure that our disappointment will be shared by these widows throughout the country. We lost a considerable number of votes owing to the provisions in the Act of 1925 and we shall await with confidence the next election after the proposals of the Government as outlined in this Measure. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health has referred to the anomalies in the 1925 Act. We brought in that Act with a limited fund at our disposal and endeavoured to do the greatest amount of good with the sum available. But the right hon. Gentleman has brought in his Bill in order to create a new heaven and a new earth irrespective of finance. Hon. Members opposite seem to miss that point entirely. We did not bring in our Bill in 1925 to cure all the ills, but to cure as many as we could with the fund available. The present Government have brought in their Bill irrespective of finance, and it leaves out far more people who ought to benefit than it really benefits. The Minister was somewhat more cynical than usual in saying that the Government could not deal with the case of the infirm widow as the inspection of such cases would mean a tremendous charge on the Exchequer. The Government should have thought of that before the last General Election and should not have raised hopes which are now doomed to disappointment. Unless the Minister of Health can see his way to give some help to this most deserving class of widows I say that he is betraying the very widows who put him into power.

Sir PHILIP PILDITCH: I think there is a certain amount of confusion in connection with this matter. I wonder if the hon. Member for Willesden East (Mr. I. G. Somerville) would agree to the omission of certain words in his Amendment; that is the omission of the words "of a man." I presume his desire is to benefit the widow; he does not desire to grant a pension to a dead man. I suggest that the words "of a man" are superfluous because a widow cannot be a widow of anybody but a man who is dead. I think it would be a very desirable Amendment if these words were omitted. We should then know that we are really helping the widow and not a man who is no longer alive.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: After the words of wisdom which have fallen from the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Sir P. Pilditch), I will consider the matter between now and the Report stage. At the moment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Robert Young): The next Amendment is that in the name of the hon. Member for Willesden East (Mr. D. G. Somerville) to leave out paragraph (ii).

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: I beg to move, in page 2, line 34, to leave out paragraph (ii).
This deals with a very serious matter and I feel somewhat strongly on the points that are involved. This paragraph refers to Section 21 of the Act of 1925, and with the three years limit which is specified you are going to disqualify a certain number of widows from getting a pension. Let me read Section 21 of the 1925 Act:
A woman shall not be entitled to and shall be disqualified from receiving payment of a widows' pension if and so long as she and any person are cohabitating together as man and wife.
We have heard a great deal from the Government about having no inquiry into means, and up to a point I agree with them, as long as these means are not such that any widow having a substantial income will also draw a widow's pension. The Government have made a great point that there should be no inquisition into means as it is irritating and humiliating to the person and might lead to evasion. Equally I suggest there should be no
inquiry into morals. It is just as irritating, just as humiliating, and leads to just as much evasion. What business is it of the Minister whether any widow does or does not cohabit with any man? If she is a widow she is entitled to a pension in respect of the contributions of her husband who has died. The second point deals with the question of the double pension. Let me read Section 24 of the 1925 Act:
A pension or an additional allowance under this Act shall not be payable to or in respect of any person to or in respect of whom a service dependents pension within the meaning of this Act is payable, except where such a pension is payable in respect of the service of the pensioner's son during the late War.
As I read this paragraph it appears that a woman would not be entitled to a double pension where it is a question of a pension or allowance in respect of her late husband. That seems to me to be unfair. This pension is to be granted to widows who come within the Bill but by this paragraph, if it is left in the Bill, they will be disqualified and you will create another anomaly and a bad one, where the widow was the wife of a man who fought in the War. The question of the widow living with another man and the question of the widow who gets a double pension, are cases which the Government should look into to see if some exception can be made. It is not fair to treat one person better than another and I am sure it is the intention of the Government to treat all classes fairly and to reduce anomalies.

Mr. PERRY: My only intervention in the discussion is to ask the hon. Member if we are quite clear as regards the Amendment. As far as I understand he does not propose to deal with the widow who does cohabit; he refers only to the question of the three years date before the man's death.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: I want to strike out paragraph (ii) of this Clause, which refers to conditions under the principal Act. If it is struck out it will eliminate these exemptions in the principal Act.

Miss LAWRENCE: Perhaps I had better try to explain this rather complicated matter. The hon. Member has misunderstood the point a little. Let me take first the case of a woman under Section 21 of the principal Act. Under
the 1925 Act a widow who is entitled to a pension but who is living with a man does not receive her pension as long as that connection lasts. When that connection comes to an end she receives her pension again. If that provision had not been put in you would have had this situation, that a widow who remarried would lose her pension but that a woman who lived with a man without being married would get a pension. The House of Commons felt it most unreasonable to put a premium of 10s. per week on such arrangements. It was put in for very obvious reasons, which I do not think anyone will dispute.
I come to the reason why this paragraph is put in. The House after a long discussion came to the conclusion that a marriage should not really carry with it any claim to a widow's pension unless three years had elapsed between the date of the marriage and the death of the husband. It was said that an old man might go through the form of marriage on his deathbed with a young girl of 16 and the House therefore said that a certain period must elapse. But they forgot that there is one class of deathbed marriages which is now wholly lawful and that is where the parties have been living together and where on his deathbed the man wants to regularise the union and put things straight. The effect of the provisions with regard to deathbed marriages, and the fact that a woman who forms an irregular union gets her pension, is that in the case of a couple living together and no ceremony takes place the woman gets her pension, but if at the approach of death the man feels that he ought to do the right thing and marries her then she loses her pension. That was not foreseen in the Act of 1925 and one can imagine cases where a real conflict of conscience takes place where the man wishes to regularise his marriage but is told that if he does put things right and marries the woman the law will tell him that it is no good. He can if he likes, but the woman will forfeit 10s. per week.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I am glad to have that explanation.

Miss LAWRENCE: Now I come to the second reason why we take out the provisions of Section 24 of the principal Act. The case of a widow who is getting a
son's allowance is in abeyance. If she marries again and if the man dies she cannot receive her widow's pension because it was not actually being paid at the time when the marriage took place. The deathbed marriage provision is only to exempt people whose pensions were actually being paid at the time of the marriage, and pensions in abeyance do not come under this provision. The paragraph in question reads as follows:
(ii) the widow of a man mentioned in paragraph (b) of this subsection shall not become entitled to a pension unless at the date of his death three years have elapsed since the date of the marriage or unless immediately before the marriage she was, or but for the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section twenty-one or of Section twenty-four of the principal Act would have been, in receipt of a widow's pension.
We have put that in in order to deal with cases arising under Sections 21 and 24 of the principal Act, and the point is the same in both, that there is a pension as it were, in abeyance.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I did not know that we were going to discuss this matter on this particular Amendment because there is another Amendment in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne)—in page 2, line 39, to leave out from the word "was" to the word "in" in line 42. That Amendment deals specifically with this point and I had supposed that we would discuss the point on that Amendment rather than on the Amendment now before the Committee.

Miss LAWRENCE: The point was raised by hon. Members opposite and I thought it as well to explain it at this stage.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no objection to discussing the matter on this Amendment. I merely wanted to know if it was the intention to do so.

The CHAIRMAN: May I suggest, in these circumstances, the advisability of withdrawing the present Amendment and having the discussion of this matter on the later Amendment mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain).

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: In the circumstances and as I am assured that both these points will arise under the other Amendment I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Miss LAWRENCE: I beg to move, in page 2, line 35, after the word "not," to insert the words
if the marriage took place after the twenty-fifth day of July, nineteen hundred and twenty-nine.
This refers to marriages which took place after the date of the introduction of the Bill. The object is to prevent fraud, but it is quite clear that nobody could commit a fraud under an Act until the Act was in existence, and marriages of this kind could not be contracted with an improper intention until after the provisions of the Measure had become known.

Dr. DAVIES: Does the hon. Lady mean after the Act has come into force?

Miss LAWRENCE: After they have had information of it.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in page 2, to leave out from the word "was" in line 39, to the word "in" in line 42.
As the hon. Lady has said, this is a very difficult and rather complicated point, and my hon. and gallant Friend put down this Amendment in order to obtain from the Government an explanation of why it was that, in the particular case of a late marriage, these disabilities were to be removed. I do not think I have very much objection as regards the class of case which comes under Section 24 of the principal Act. It is possible that a person would have been in receipt of a widow's pension if she had not also been in receipt of a service dependant's pension, and I agree that we do not want to deprive a widow of her pension after the death of her husband, even though her marriage to that husband was a late marriage, if she was entitled just before that marriage to a pension, whether a widow's pension or a service dependant's pension. But in the other class of case, coming under Section 21 of the principal Act, the Government proposal does not seem to be equally justifiable. In the explanation given by the hon. Lady she appeared to assume that in all cases where a marriage took place after cohabitation, the marriage was a marriage of the persons who had been cohabiting. But there is nothing to that effect in the Bill. The marriage might be with somebody else, and not with the person with whom the
woman had been cohabiting. It does not seem to me, therefore, that the reasons which the hon. Lady gave for inserting this proposal really cover the ground.
I put it to her that in order to carry out her intention, assuming that it is right that her intention should be carried out, some alteration or elaboration of the wording would be necessary to ensure that this benefit shall be given only in cases where the marriage is the marriage of the people who had been cohabiting before. What we are considering now is the case of the late marriage. We recognised before, as I think the Government now recognise, the necessity of not offering a temptation to two people to marry for the sole reason that the husband being old and perhaps in bad health, and likely to die within a short time, the woman can get a pension at the expense either of the Fund or the State by that method. We must not put that sort of opportunity in people's way, or make it easy for an opportunity of that kind to be taken. In the principal Act certain restrictions were imposed in the case of these late marriages. We find in Section 3, which deals with widows' pensions, a proviso as follows:
Provided that the widow of a man who had attained the age of sixty at the date of the marriage shall not, if the marriage takes place after the twenty-ninth day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-five, be entitled to a widow's pension.
Those words were inserted for the same reason as that which moves the hon. Lady to insert corresponding words in this Bill. Then in the 1925 Act three alternatives were given. This provision was to operate unless—
(a) There have been one or more children of the marriage.
Obviously in that case it is a genuine marriage, not made for the particular motive of obtaining a pension.
(b) At the date of the death of her husband three years or more have elapsed since the date of the marriage.
Again I suggest that that is a reasonable condition.
(c) She was immediately before the marriage in receipt of a widow's pension.
The Committee will see that if a widow already in receipt of a pension by right of the insurance of her former husband, were to marry a person who was over 60, and if he died without either of these
other two conditions being fulfilled—there being no children and the three years not having elapsed—it would be very Hard in her case that she should not only lose her second husband but also lose her pension from the first husband, having no right to a pension from the second. That was a case which we had to consider, and therefore we put in the third condition. But if a woman was not in receipt of a widow's pension, because she was cohabiting with another man, she was disqualified because she had not been in receipt of a pension just before the marriage, and whilst I can understand that you might make a case—if you thought it a good case—for a marriage which has taken place because the old man has been told that he ought to make things right, there is no justification for a proposal of this kind where a widow who has been cohabiting with another man, marries an old man of 60—not the man with whom she has been cohabiting. Therefore, I put it to the Government that if their intention in drafting this paragraph was what we understood it to be from the hon. Lady, namely, that of restoring the right to a pension in that particular case where a woman has been cohabiting without marriage, and where as a matter of fact marriage takes place, she ought to exclude the case where the marriage is not between those two people, but between the woman and some other man.

Miss LAWRENCE: I think the right hon. Gentleman has overlooked one point. If he looks at Section 21 of the principal Act he will find that the woman is disqualified from receiving a widow's pension, if and so long as she and any person are cohabiting. If she leaves the man then she receives her pension, and if, in the case contemplated by the right hon. Gentleman, the connection is broken off, the widow gets her pension back again. If she then marries a man of 60, she comes under condition (c) mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. She was immediately before the marriage in receipt of a widow's pension. That case would arise under the 1925 Act. The woman does not get the pension while she is living with the man, but if she leaves the man she again becomes a widow for the purposes of the Act. She then marries, let us say, an old man and he dies. At the time of the marriage she
was in receipt of a pension. Both the cases we are trying to meet are the cases where the thing is put right at the end. If the widow living with a man breaks off the connection, she becomes again, within the meaning of the Act, a widow; she gets the pension, and she can marry whom she likes, and come under the proviso (3, c). That is the case if she has married someone else. But in the case of the real deathbed marriage, it is grossly unfair that that should be penalised.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not objecting to the case where there is a deathbed marriage with the person with whom the woman has been cohabiting, but I think you want to be careful of the person who does cohabit until she finds an old man with a lot of money, who, she thinks, may die soon. She has not been in receipt of a pension till she marries, and I do not see why she should be brought in now.

Miss LAWRENCE: She comes in under the 1925 Act. If you have a thoroughly unscrupulous woman, I suppose such cases might arise, but I think it will be a very small class, and it was considered to be so unlikely a gap in the 1925 Act that it was not dealt with there. If the right hon. Gentleman will fill up the gap in his own Act and supply appropriate words, I am sure my right hon. Friend will be glad to consider them.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think there is any difference between us except in the expression of opinion whether it is worth while to provide that an undeserving class of case, small and exceptional if you like, shall nevertheless be excluded.

Miss LAWRENCE: I am sure my right hon. Friend will be very glad indeed to consider it.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I hope the Minister will not further reconsider this point. This is a very liberal concession that the Government are making, and the real effect of the Amendment would be to put a premium on immorality rather than on morality, because we are dealing with widows of men of 70. For the purpose of this Amendment, we are dealing with a woman who is left a widow and is entitled to a pension, and has lost that pension because she has cohabited, but
who can get that pension back at any moment when she ceases to cohabit. Are we to put that unfortunate woman in the position of being deprived of a pension, merely because she gets married to a man who is not kind enough to die within three years? As long as she lives in what is termed sin, she loses a pension, but she can recover it at any moment. If, on the other hand, she marries, and this Amendment is carried, she will lose her pension. For these reasons, I very much hope that the Minister will not further consider this point, the explanation of which has been most satisfactory.

Miss LAWRENCE: If the Amendment be withdrawn, I am certain my right hon. Friend will carefully consider this very small point. If there is anything in it, it can be dealt with on the Report stage.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I agree that it is a small point, but on the understanding that it will be considered in a serious spirit, with a genuine endeavour to remove a defect if it be found to be a defect, I will ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment I call is one standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain)—in page 3, line 10, at the end, to insert new paragraph:
(v) a sum shall not be paid on account of a pension under this section to or in respect of any person while that person is absent from Great Britain.
I am not quite sure whether this Amendment is covered by Section 22 of the principal Act.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not quite sure myself.

The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will move it and explain what the point at issue is.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in page 3, line 10, at the end, to insert the words:
(v) a sum shall not be paid on account of a pension under this section to or in respect of any person while that person is absent from Great Britain.
As you have obviously been aware, Mr. Chairman, the Amendment which you have called is practically the first paragraph of Section 22 of the principal Act, and I would not have put it down if I had been satisfied that that paragraph
was still in force as regards this Clause of this Bill, but I notice that in a later Clause, Clause 3, we find it stated:
The provisions of this section shall have effect with respect to persons who are in any part of His Majesty's dominions outside Great Britain, whether they left Great Britain before or after the commencement of this Act.
It goes on to say:
If a pension would but for the provisions of paragraph (a) of Section twenty-two of the principal Act (which relates to the residential qualification of pensioners) be payable under or by virtue of that Act to or in respect of any such person as aforesaid, then the said paragraph (a) shall not apply as regards any sum accruing on account of the pension after the commencement of this Act.
That is not a pension under Clause 3 of the Bill, but any pension under the Act, and, therefore, it appears to me that the first paragraph in Clause 3 abrogates paragraph (a) of Section, 22 of the original Act as regards pensions payable under this first Clause of this Bill. If that be so—and the hon. Lady will correct me if I have wrongly interpreted the effect of the Clauses—I want to protest against it, because I do not think it is a right thing. Here you are going to give a free pension, or a pension without any contribution having been paid in respect of it, to a number of widows. One of these widows may be the widow of a man who was formerly employed, let us say, in Ireland. She may be living in Ireland now. She may come over here and collect her pension of 10s. a week, which is to be paid for, not by the taxpayers of Ireland, but by the taxpayers of this country, and she may go back to Ireland and enjoy it. She may live in Ireland with this pension, and neither herself nor perhaps any of her relatives are even, I will not say contributing towards the cost of the pension, because nobody will do that, either in Ireland or in this country, but paying any share of the taxation of this country. That seems to me to be altogether unjustifiable, and therefore I put down this Amendment. If a person chooses to come back and live over here and pay whatever contribution she may be called upon to pay towards the expense of carrying on our local or national government in this country, I have no objection, but if she is going to live somewhere else, even if it be in some
part of His Majesty's Dominions, and to draw this pension, which is to be paid for by the taxpayers of this country, it seems to me to be going rather farther than is justifiable.

Miss LAWRENCE: I cannot see any logic in drawing a distinction between the several classes of pensioner. If the Committee passes Clause 3, I cannot see any reason for distinguishing between the widow pensioners under the 1925 Act, including the pre-Act widows, and the widow pensioners under this Bill. The effect of the Amendment, if carried together with Clause 3, would be to remove the residence qualification for the widow pensioner under the 1925 provision, the pre-Act widow pensioner with children under the 1925 Act, but to leave the pre-Act elderly widow outside. Take the case of Ireland, mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. Supposing a man has been an insured man in England, and has married an Irish wife, and died, and the old woman goes back to live in her native country, I cannot see why she should be deprived of her pension. The husband would have had to insure in England at some time or other, and his widow would draw a pension. Supposing she chooses to go into the Channel Islands, why on earth should she be deprived of her pension simply because she has got relatives settled in Jersey or Guernsey and goes to live there with them? Supposing the old woman has got some children settled somewhere in the Empire and wants to go and live with them, is it wrong that the old woman, who may be a grandmother, should rejoin her family? If you cut her out, she may have to stay at home. If she has gone out, say, to Canada, to live with her family, is that a reason why she should have 10s. a week less than a woman who has stopped at home in England?
7.0 p.m.
Either you desire to let these old women take these pensions within the Empire, or else you say it is not fair that they should draw something from the English taxpayer and live somewhere within the Empire, but not in this country. Why should you say that one class of old woman may take her pension with her to any part of the Empire and another class may not? Do hon. Members opposite really want to deprive our elderly widows of their pensions because they stay with their relations in Canada?
That is what the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment means. We say, Give the old widows a pension. You may disagree with this particular class of old widow having pensions, but we say that where the State has given a widow a pension, she shall hold the pension wherever she goes. There is a particular reason in the case of emigrants. People may desire to emigrate with an old woman, a grandmother, a pre-Act widow of the age of 55. If you say, "You may go to Canada, but if you take grandmother with you, you will lose 10s. a week," you are doing something which is utterly wrong. It is quite absurd to make this distinction. I have pointed out that this residence qualification, this idea that crossing St. George's Channel would qualify for a pension, is impossible. I would point out that under the Bill a widow must have spent two years in Great Britain before the date when, under the provisions of this Section, she becomes entitled to a pension. She should then be free to stay in England with her relatives or to migrate with them.

Mr. MILLS: I have sat through the Second Beading and the Committee stage of this Bill, including the all-night sitting, and have not spoken because I desire to see the Bill through, but I should like now to point out in a few words to the right hon. Gentleman the limiting effect of his Amendment. Supposing that an old lady was invited to pay a visit overseas, it would mean that she would lose her pension during the few months she spent with her relatives, whether in Ireland or farther afield. I have, as a Member of this House, mentioned the case of my own mother who went to Canada in 1912, stayed there during the War because my brothers were in the Canadian Army and, when she returned to England, was refused a pension because she had spent six years of her life since 55 outside this country. I am glad to say that by raising the matter in this House, I was able to mitigate that cruel decision. This is a limitation which would rob the widow of her pension during the time she visits her relatives, and the Committee ought not to agree to it.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: The Committee is rather in danger of creating a privileged class in these widows. The Income Tax payer
who is resident abroad gets no rebate whatever; he gets no personal allowance or children's allowance if he does not reside here. By this Bill we are giving these widows a pension and allowing them, if they live abroad, to draw it without any rebate whatever.

Sir B. PETO: My right hon. Friend who moved the Amendment has been taunted because he did not make any such provision in his Act with respect to the pre-Act widows. I would point out that, under the 1925 Act, there was involved a comparatively small number of widows who obviously might only be included for a limited period. It was, therefore, not worth while to make this difference, especially as that small number of widows would only be on the fund until their children left school. What was done under the 1925 Act is no argument as to what ought to be done in the case of the present Bill, where we are dealing not with a small number, but with an immense class of widows in respect of whom no contributions have been paid. As a matter of justice, considering that no contributions have been paid for this class, it is perfectly reasonable to say that their pension should be paid only to those who are resident in this country. The fact that the right hon. Gentleman did not see fit to make this residential condition necessary in the case of a small number of pensions for a limited period is no reason whatever, in logic or justice, why this Amendment should not be accepted. As to the argument of the hon. Member opposite, about the widow who goes to stay for a few weeks with friends abroad, if the relatives are in such affluent circumstances as to be able to pay her expenses for a trip abroad for a few weeks, there is no reason why she should receive this pension.

Mr. WALLHEAD: This is the first time I have spoken in this Debate, and I rise to say that I hope that the Government will not accept this Amendment. I do not understand the reiterated arguments about the non-contributory character of this pension. Hon. Members opposite talk as if the money that is to be paid for these pensions dropped from the sky or came from some providential fund which they themselves provided. These women are the widows of men who have been in industry for a con-
siderable number of years. My contention is that, if any man has done useful work in our country in any modern form of industry for any number of years—say, from 14 to 55 or 60—he has created sufficient wealth in that period of time to provide his widow with a much more generous pension than she is getting under this Bill and to provide for himself as well. As to the hon. Member's argument about the non-contributory character—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member may have said it was non-contributory, but he did not pursue it, and the hon. Member cannot develop it.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I am not going to develop it any further. I have said all that I wanted to say on the matter. I hope that the Government will stand by their Bill and not accept the Amendment.

Mr. HARRIS: I am surprised at the remarkable doctrine expounded by the right hon. Member who moved the Amendment. I had a similar controversy with him on the 1925 Bill. I am surprised that the exponent of Imperialism and of regarding the Empire as one, should put in the Bill any barriers to the free movement of population between the various parts of the British Empire. I thought the doctrine of his party was that they regarded the development of the Empire by the free movement of population as essential to the well-being of civilisation. Yet here he is moving an Amendment which will make it very difficult for some elderly widow, who has done her part in bringing up children as citizens of the Empire, to go to them in South Africa, Canada, Australia or New Zealand. That is what the argument of these super-Imperialists amounts to. I happen to be connected with New Zealand and I know many cases where, when the grandmother is left a widow, the children invite her to join them overseas. The right hon. Gentleman suggests that, if she wishes to go out and join these Empire builders, she should be penalised by losing her small pittance of 10s.

Commander WILLIAMS: The hon. Member who has just spoken is labouring under a complete delusion, as many Members of his party are apt to do. When we are in Committee—no Liberal
would, of course, understand it—our duty is to protect the taxpayer. That is the primary object of this House. But because we are trying to draft the Bill in such a way that there will be no possibility of the taxpayer's money going to a wrong source.

Mr. E. BROWN: What is a wrong source?

Commander WILLIAMS: I mean that when you are considering a Bill in Committee, it is the duty of the Committee to see that the money is going to the people for whom it is intended. This Amendment is not put down with any desire to stop the movement of population, but it is a definite principle which has been brought forward here. My point is this: Under this Bill we shall be paying pensions to people who are not residents in this country. While a person is resident here it is quite easy to administer the pension. Some of us have had experience of cases where people go abroad and draw sums from this country. They are a long way away and the complication of administering the pension is considerable. May we have from the Parliamentary Secretary some statement of how these pensions will be administered and paid abroad? Hon. Members will remember that, when the old age pension was originally introduced, there was a picture in "Punch" showing that in Ireland a very large number of the family were drawing the old age pension. It was shown clearly at that time that there was a certain amount of abuse, as far as that section of the country was concerned. What machinery has the Parliamentary Secretary for knowing when these pensions cease, in other words when the person entitled dies? It is not easy to find out, and it would be of interest to know how she proposes to deal with the matter. I hope she will give serious consideration to the point.

Mr. TINKER: The people who will get these pensions are persons in poor circumstances, and the 10s. will not be sufficient to keep them. If they decide to go overseas to their children, surely it will relieve the State of some responsibility, because it will mean a helpless person going abroad to be helped by someone else. With the young and virile going from these shores, what is going to happen to these old people? If these old people go abroad to live
with their children, we ought to regard that as a benefit to the State, and say to them that because they are going to relieve us of a burden, they can have their 10s. I am sure that hon. Members opposite have not recognised that point and I hope that they will not press the Amendment, for it will put a penalty upon persons well deserving of all that the State is going to give them.

Captain GUNSTON: None of us are up against emigration, and to bring in that point shows that a misapprehension has arisen about this Amendment. I am rather afraid that it will be possible for a widow living in Ireland, whose husband, long since dead, might at some time have been in an insurable occupation, to come over and draw a pension in this country, and then go back to Ireland. The hon. Lady has drawn our attention to Clause 11, and I understand that she thinks that this Clause prevents anything of the kind happening. It is, however, still hardly a sufficient safeguard, because from my reading of it, it is possible for the widow living in Ireland whose husband at one time might have been in an insurable occupation, to live here for two years and then go back and enjoy for the rest of her life a pension to which neither her husband nor the Irish Free State had contributed. There should be a further safeguard, for we want to protect the taxpayer in order that money should not be spent on objects on which nobody wants to spend it.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. E. BROWN: I beg to move, in page 3, line 11, to leave out Sub-section (2).
Broadly speaking, this Sub-section defines the income limit of the non-manual insured worker who has died previous to the Insurance Acts. The Sub-section refers to Paragraph (k) in the Schedule of the Act of 1924, which reads:
Employment otherwise than by way of manual labour and at a rate of remuneration exceeding in value two hundred and fifty pounds a year, or in cases where such employment involves part-time service only at a rate of remuneration which in the opinion of the Minister is equivalent to a rate of remuneration exceeding two hundred and fifty pounds a year for whole-time service.
The Committee will observe, therefore, that the Bill seeks, in defining insurable
service for the late husband of the widow, to go back to the pre-1919 state. The income limit in the original condition for insurable occupations for non-manual workers was £160. From the point of view of the draftsman, I can understand that he desires logic and tidiness, but from the point of view of administration, I think that after so long a lapse of time, it will be extraordinarily difficult if you have' some other limit than £250. If the Minister will accept the Amendment, she will find that when she sets out her schedule of questions to be answered by the claimants, she will have taken away from those who are to determine the validity of the claims a good many troublesome cases on the borderline of £160. It will be easier for a widow to prove that £250, at present the insurable limit, was the income limit of her husband, and I am sure that it will ease the amount of time in determining claims.

Miss LAWRENCE: I am afraid that I cannot accept this Amendment. The people who are to receive widows pensions are widows of men of the insurable classes. Up to 1919 the limit for non-manual workers was £160. That was at the time when a £ was a £. In 1919 the value of money, prices and wages had changed, and Parliament changed the £160 into £250, because of the fall in the purchasing value of money. The amount of £250 post-War was in the opinion of the House the fair equivalent in cost to the £160 pre-War. That is to say, the people who are now receiving £250 are as nearly as possible on the same level as people who were receiving £160 before the War. This change from £150 to £250 is merely an expression, as it were, in the Insurance Act of the fall in the purchasing power of money. If you adopt the limit for non-manual workers of £160 in 1919 you take in men of the insurable class. If you put the limit at £250 before 1919, you will take in a great number of people who are not in the least of the insurable class, and who were deliberately excluded from the Insurance Act as being a class for whom that Act was not intended. The hon. Gentleman said that the administration would be easier. It would make the most awful chaos in administration. A man who was getting £250 before the War is the same sort of man who is getting £400 or £500 now,
and is outside an insurance occupation, and you will bring in as pre-Act widows people who were not and never have been of the insurable class. The Amendment would not make it at all easier for administration, and we should be venturing into unchartered seas from the point of view of the Department.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) can hardly have consulted the original Act when he moved his Amendment, because the provision in this sub-section merely follows the usual course of a Government in that is to say they are adopting words which are used in the original Act of 1925. If you look at the Section which deals with excepted employment in the Act of 1925, you will find in sub-section (9) the words:
This Section … shall so far as it applies to any period before the thirtieth clay of June, nineteen hundred and nineteen, have effect as if for references to two hundred and fifty pounds a year there were substituted references to one hundred and sixty pounds a year.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Captain CROOKSHANK: This Motion enables us to review in somewhat fuller detail exactly what has been dealt with by the Committee during their long and arduous journey through the Bill, and I should like to make a few remarks with regard to the Clause before it is either added to or deleted from the Bill. It gives us the opportunity of taking a considerably wider view of the position in which these widows, for whom we are now legislating, will find themselves. The Committee and the country as a whole should realise clearly what this Clause is meant to do. It is meant to bring within the ambit of widows pensions some half a million women whose late husbands had in no way contributed towards any fund out of which the pensions are to be paid. These 500,000 women will in the aggregate, according to the right hon. Gentleman, receive over the next 16 years to something like £81,000,000, which is to be provided entirely by the taxpayer. That, as my right hon. Friend said when he first saw the Bill, is enough to stagger us, because of the enormous cost which it will throw upon the country. It stag-
gers us too because it has had no explanation from the Treasury Bench, We have had no explanation from the Treasury, and I have no hesitation in repeating that criticism, because it is no light thing to commit this House to this vast expenditure without any explanation or a word said of what the views of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury may be.
The second point which I should like to stress is that by inserting this Clause into our pensions legislation, we are grafting a Clause which is based on the non-contributory, principle upon a compulsory contributory system of pensions. This is not only trying to ride two horses at once, but is laying up an enormous amount of complication for the future. We are faced with injustices now; it must be patently unjust to bring in half a million women and to give them free pensions when, at the same time, millions of our fellow citizens are compelled to pay weekly contributions towards the fund in the sure and certain hope that in due course they will get pensions, to some part of which they have contributed. It seems to be manifestly unjust that we should have, on the one hand, one great block of people receiving pensions free, and on the other hand another great block of people receiving pensions towards which some contribution has been paid. That is really the fundamental objection that I and many of my hon. and right hon. Friends have to this Clause standing part of the Bill. We are trying to engraft on to a perfectly logical, sensible and easily understood principle of contributory pensions the principle of giving pensions to another class of persons, probably on the same economic basis through having had husbands who were at one time in the insurable class; but the fact that this latter class are going to receive pensions for nothing, as it were, will create a feeling of injustice on the part of their fellow citizens and neighbours who are receiving pensions because their husbands contributed to the scheme or who hope to receive pensions should their husbands die.
I think the right hon. Gentleman and his friends are raising a problem which will be very difficult in the coming years. Whether his party approve or disapprove of contributory pensions, I put it to him that administratively, at the lowest, but
probably anyhow, it is going to be almost impossible—if he wants to—to get rid of the contributory pension system, on the ground of finance for one thing, and on the very ground of fairness for another. Therefore, these difficulties will not increase—I mean these difficulties will not decrease—[Interruption]. I said "decrease," and the hon. Member who has interrupted me must know that all hon. Members make a slip like that sometimes.

Mr. MARCH: Do you want it corrected?

Captain CROOKSHANK: These difficulties will not decrease through the Government having brought in this extra 500,000 widows. I was dealing, when I was interrupted, with the injustices which will be caused in the minds of many people when they find that their next-door neighbours are getting pensions on a different basis from that on which they themselves are receiving them. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has taken that fully into account. Recently I came across something in this connection which struck me very forcibly. It was a remark in a speech made by Mr. Rudyard Kipling in Canterbury. He was addressing a body of schoolboys, and was talking to them about the comparisons between school life and life when they grow up. He said this, which I commend to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman:
Most injustices in this world are not inflicted deliberately, but because people won't take the trouble to think things out. It makes their heads ache, and if persisted in may make them change their opinions.
If you have your opinions so set that you do not want to risk changing them, you do not think, and you find yourselves, possibly, bringing about some injustice.
We on these benches have tried to stress and to bring out this position. I know that it is easy to single out one hypothetical case or another, but our object in doing so has been to try to bring more forcibly to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman that, though he may be granting pensions to something like 500,000 widows, he will be raising up a terrible sense of grievance throughout the countryside which he, at any rate, will not be able to remedy. What are the qualifications for pensions, going to be? According to what we have decided
so far, a woman must first of all be a widow and of or over the age of 55. We have tried to get explanations from the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues as to why they selected the age of 55. The right hon. Gentleman on one occasion during these Debates said the age of 55 was reached after a good deal of consideration, but on another occasion he admitted that it was a purely arbitrary age. It must be arbitrary, any age must be arbitrary, but we have never got any explanation from the Treasury Bench as to why they should have selected this particular age, except that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend have told us that is the age at which a large proportion, if not all, of the women whose cases we are considering are beginning to find themselves ready to drop out of the industrial field owing to increasing age. But there is no particular reason that can be adduced by anyone as to why the age should be 55 any more than 54, 53 or 47.
That is the first qualification—the widow must be a widow of 55 or over. There will be injustices and grievances felt by those who are under 55, but they cannot be dealt with at the moment. Then the late husband must have been either a member of an approved society or his normal employment must have been one which, in the opinion of the Minister, was one in respect of which, had the Act been in force, contributions would have been payable. That was a consideration which caused a good deal of discussion. The Minister said there was a great volume of case-law in the Department defining what exactly is an insurable occupation, and because of this great volume of case-law he claimed that his Department, or, as the Clause says, "The Minister," should be the arbiter as to whether or not a man's occupation would have been insurable. That was a point of view which many of us contested very strongly, and we based our arguments on the fact that it was rather hard on the applicant that the Minister should have the last say. We felt the applicant ought to have the right of appeal if she had lost her case with the Minister; she ought to have a further chance of pleading her case before impartial people. On that point the Minister would not meet us, though he did agree to meet us on the other point as to the qualification that the late husband was normally occu-
pied in what would have been an insurable occupation.
There are two tests; first the insurability of the occupation of the husband, and, secondly, that it had been his normal occupation. On this latter point the right hon. Gentleman agreed to consider between now and next week whether he would give some other title than his own ipse dixit with regard to the normality of the occupation of the dead man. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give that matter his very favourable consideration. We are trying to give the applicant one more chance after the Minister has dealt with her. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) made a great appeal that the point should be settled by the Minister, because he said we could question this decision. Whether that be a good point or not, it seems to me that you will give the applicant a better chance if you give her two chances instead of one; give her the Department first and then another appeal. Of course, there must be finality somewhere. [Laughter.]. I do not see that there is anything very funny about that, but as it seems to impress hon. Members so much I will repeat it. There has to be finality somewhere. I suggest that it will give the applicant a better chance if two completely different people deal with her case.
We have tried to make other conditions. We have tried to limit the number of persons who will get this free gift in order to have further funds available for those who could prove that their cases were harder. We tried repeatedly to devise Amendments which would have carried out the pledge of the Prime Minister that every widow in need should be able to get a pension. That, probably, could not have been done under this Bill, but some part of that pledge could have been carried out, whether by using the tests which were prescribed under the Old Age Pension Acts or putting in the income tax limit, which would have been more wise and more reasonable from the point of view of the woman concerned, saying that no widow should get this free gift pension from the State if she had an income higher than the income tax limit. But the right hon. Gentleman would have none of that. I think the right hon. Gentleman never did justice to that argu-
ment. He never really made out a case for not putting in the income tax limit. It will be very difficult to justify giving a pension to a woman whose present income is such that she has to pay income tax when no one with whom she has been connected has at any time contributed anything at all towards the pension except perhaps through income tax. The right hon. Gentleman could only say there were very few of such cases, but whenever we have asked how many widows are concerned, and how many widows would not get pensions, he says he does not know. He said at question time that he did not know how many widows that would cut out; he does not know whether there are many or few of these comparatively well-to-do women who will be getting pensions under these provisions.
That is one general line of criticism against this Clause, and I regret very much that the right hon. Gentleman did not see his way to accept our criticism. I have always made my position quite clear, and I believe it is the position of the whole of my party, and it is that we wish to see pensions put on such a basis that pensioners obtain them as a right. One of my objections to this Clause is that we are going away from that principle. There is no right in any contributory or legal sense; there may be in the charitable sense—[HON MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—in the sense that this House, in its wisdom, may desire to distribute certain moneys over a certain section of the population; but when it comes to a basis which is any basis of contribution or need, the right hon. Gentleman has entirely refused to meet us.
We object, too, to this idea that the Minister should be the judge. Though he has met us with regard to the normality of the employment, the Bill as introduced laid it down that he was to be the final judge and arbiter on all these matters with regard to these 500,000 widows. I dare say in this case the powers will not be used arbitrarily, but it behoves this Committee not to give all these great powers to any Minister or Department, because if you do you will be sowing the seeds of what is called administrative law. It is no excuse to say that something of that kind may have been done in the provisions of the Act that we are amending,
or some other legislation five, 10 or 20 years ago; and the final proof that it is no excuse is to be found in the fact that to-day the great antagonists of these despotic powers being given is the Lord Chief Justice, who at one time was a Law Officer of the Crown, and must, with great respect to him, have agreed to the Measures passed when his Government was in office.
That disposes of the argument about going back to previous legislation. I do not believe this Clause is going to do one-half of what the Minister thinks it will do. I agree that it is going to give 10s. a week to approximately half-a-million women, but it will not remedy the injustices which he says he is setting out to remedy. Then as to cost: The figure of £80,000,000 or so has been bandied about in the course of Debate and has figured in some of the Papers and questions and answers which deal with this Measure, but it remains true that the right hon. Gentleman said that he did not know what the capital cost would be, because it had not been worked out. That is my final comment on this question. It is my final comment. [Interruption.]. hon. Gentleman opposite apparently have never head of repetition as a form of emphasis. I commend it to them when they are addressing their constituents. It is a valuable addition to their speeches. What I was saying, in spite of these attempts to draw me off, was that the right hon. Gentleman says he is frankly trying to assist the largest number of people possible, and in the laudable desire, from his point of view, to do that, he has fixed upon 500,000 widows who will, if the Committee passes this Clause, receive the benefit, but at a cost which the right hon. Gentleman says he cannot compute.
Here we have the final proof, if proof is required, of what this country will be in for if it really allows itself to be run on Socialist principles. No estimate of the cost! Whether the country can afford it of not, he says, depends upon whether it wants it, and I put it to the Committee that this Clause of this Measure will show the country as a whole exactly what is meant by Socialist legislation. A great many people will realise that it means picking out arbitrarily, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, a certain class of the community, arbitrarily
choosing an age at which they are to receive benefits, and, by no process of logic, argument or need, distributing to a certain class of the community sums of public money to which they have not contributed and to which no one with whom they are concerned has contributed. All this is done for no reason whatsoever except that in that way we are supposed to be assisting the largest number of the most needy section of the community. When that is done without any financial considerations being brought to bear on the discussions, I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman will not in the end be so pleased with his Measure as he is to-day.

Mr. STEPHEN: Some of my hon. Friends on these benches, during the Second Reading of this Measure, expressed their sense of dissatisfaction with this Bill. We felt that the amount of expenditure was utterly inadequate in regard to a number of widow's and orphans. We have had to face the question of what is the best course to pursue, when one's own Government is responsible' for the Measure, in regard to the Amendments that are proposed. In the name of Members of the Independent Labour party I want to say to the Minister of Health that the fact that we have not put any Amendments on the Paper is not to be taken by him as meaning that we in any real sense acquiesce in this Bill. Clause 1 appears to me a pitiably mean and inadequate one. There have been many discussions during the Committee stage of various Amendments, and a great deal of reference has been made to the speeches of Members of this House. Quite frankly, I and some of my colleagues have been very uneasy because we feel that so far as this Measure is concerned many of those points were justified. It is well that we should be frank in this Committee. One has to recognise that in dealing with this Measure there may be a case made for the correction of anomalies in one Measure and dealing with the full subject of social insurance in another and greater Measure. This Bill and this Clause, however, do not deal with the anomalies that we ourselves pointed out in the Act that is now being amended.
After all, when we think of the pre-Act widows, the widows before 4th January, 1926, when we realise the amount of criticism that Members of the
Labour party addressed to that anomaly, and the fact that the anomaly is allowed to remain in a very large Measure, naturally some of the Members on these benches feel very sore about the position. A woman who became a widow on 3rd January, 1926, received a pension only if she had members of her family under 14 years of age, and perhaps the woman next door might become a widow on 5th January, with no family, and yet she was ineligible for the pension under the previous Act How often have Members on these benches, and spokesmen of the Labour party in the constituencies pointed to the utterly ridiculous character of that arbitrary date, 4th January, and the consequences it entailed to so many! Yet we continue that anomaly, unless the widow is 55 or 60 years of age. That is one of the most vicious anomalies that the former Act was responsible for, one of its most cruel conditions, its way of discriminating by an arbitrary date. Yet it is continued here. The only attempt that is made to deal with it is by this reference to the age, or else by the alteration that is made in the succeeding Clause, that until the child is 16 years of age the pension may be continued.
8.0 p.m.
What a pitiful condition of affairs, that the widow is to be left in this position, battling away on this mean pension, quite inadequate for a mother to bring up her family in anything like decent conditions! She takes it out of herself, trying to give the boys and girls of her family something of an opportunity in life, and then the pension ceases, unless she is 55 years of age, when the youngest child has become 16. It is said that the children are then out to work, but what child going out to work is bringing in an income that will provide for itself in any adequate sense? Yet the children then are to take up the maintenance of the widowed mother. I and my friends of the Independent Labour party think that this Government and the members of our party are going to face the same difficulties in the future, in regard to the continuance of this anomaly, that the people opposite met at the last General Election. The, criticisms passed on the right hon. Gentleman opposite were thoroughly justified, and the electorate agree that they were, because even hon. Members opposite will admit that at the last elec-
tion one of the big factors in determining the issue was this question of anomalies in connection with pensions—that and the similarly cruel treatment by the former Government of the unemployed. To my mind those were the great determining factors in the last election, not something about international affairs, and I believe that this Clause, with its anomalies and the new anomalies that will be created by the imposition of the 55 or 60 years, will put the members of this Committee into the same impossible position that the hon. Gentlemen opposite were put in by their previous Measure. In the opposition to this Clause and the fight which is being put up, I myself would like to have seen right hon. Gentlemen opposite in the position of saying that they have learned something from the last election. This is a mean Clause; as the hon. Members opposite would amend it, it would be meaner still. They have set out to make this Clause 1, with all its anomalies, meaner still. They may say that they did not, that they sought to extend it in some way by bringing in a means limit; but when the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crook-shank) was talking about the cost, it was very evident that the Conservative party were not in any more generous mood with regard to those matters.
One is in a very difficult position indeed with regard to this Bill and with regard to its Clauses. I may be asked: "Why did you not put down Amendments to this Clause and seek to amend it?" The Minister assured us that it was only the beginning—that it was the first Measure, and that there was to be another Measure. I should like to ask him whether he can tell us anything about the time when we are likely to get the second Measure. I think the Committee is entitled to know at this stage something more than simply the indefinite idea which has been thrown out that this is one of a series of Measures. One is not unreasonable, I think, in asking that, because one is not pressing the right hon. Gentleman to name a date, or a month; one does not necessarily mean even that one is pressing him for an exact year; but one might ask him whether this second Measure is coming within the lifetime of this Parliament. If one is anticipating the normal life for this Parliament, will it come within the
five years for which this Parliament may last under the Constitution? I myself, when I think of the programme of the Government with regard to other first class Measures, feel uneasy with regard to that point. What exactly does it mean? Assuming that this Parliament does go on, if not for the full number of years, for two or three years, are we going to the country telling the people that if we had continued in Office for five years a second Measure would have been introduced?
Then there is another question which arises in connection with the promise of future legislation which will put these widows and old people into a better position: the question of cost. I think the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health said that one of the factors which the Government had to face in connection with this was the question of cost—that the finance which it involved was a material factor in the drafting of the Bill. When I hear the finance of the Bill discussed, and when I think of it as being upon the non-contributory basis to which this party is pledged, then I wonder where in the future the extra finance is to come from. Are we going to have a great revival of trade? Are we going to have ever so many Super-tax payers, so that one can increase the Budget to a very large extent, which is not possible to-day? I do not believe for a moment that there is going to be any such great extension of the prosperity of this country as will make possible, say two or three years' hence, taxation which is not possible to-day; but I think the money is in the country here at the present time, and that the Government should have been able to get the money when they brought forward this Measure. We are going to begin all over again on some other occasion, and we are going to have the Minister of Health and his satellites behind him setting themselves to repeat the process with another new Measure, and then we will walk through the Lobbies; and by that time it is possible that, owing to the accidents and the misfortunes which occur in life, the Government may be a little less popular in the country than it is at the present time. [Interruption.]

Mr. MARCH: Tory cheers!

Mr. STEPHEN: My hon. Friend suggests "Tory cheers"; but some Members
of my party wriggle with joy when their Prime Minister is praised in the Conservative Press, or when he says something which elicits sympathising cheers from the Conservative benches; but, when legitimate criticism of one's own Government comes, and someone on the other side cheers, it seems to be a grievous wrong. I am not to be deterred by any more or less intelligent, or otherwise, interruption from my colleagues on the benches opposite from saying things which I think ought to be said in connection with this Measure; and I say here definitely that I am quite confident that there is not a Member of the Labour party in this House who feels any measure of comfort in putting forward this as our first Measure dealing with the wrongs and the needs of the widows and their children in this country. I am quite confident that every Member in his heart feels that it is inadequate, and very different from the Measure which we visualised when we were on the hustings, and when we came back into this House with the glow of a great electoral triumph in our hearts.
I come back to the question: where is the money to be found for that great Measure in the future which is going to make these things right? Will that money be more capable of being found at a future date than it is to-day? I myself cannot see how circumstances are going to change so greatly that in time to come taxation which is not possible at the present time is going to be possible. In this connection, I want to say that, while one is quite willing to have patience with the Government and to wait as long as possible, yet at the same time there are those people in our constituencies who are in those circumstances: widows and old people who cannot afford to wait, who have been looking to the great changes and the tremendous improvement in their circumstances which were going to result from the coming into office of a Labour Government. Many have received the same kind of letters which I myself have received from widows in my constituency. They tell me that they are excluded, that they thought they were going to be included, that our election pledges led them to believe that they were going to be included, and yet to-day they are going to be left in those circumstances. They expected so much of this Measure. There, are 500,000 of them who are going to get
10s. per week, but so many of those 500,000 will still be within the ambit of the Poor Law. They are going to be left in that position; so some of us feel that this Measure is not going to be, for us, something which we can put before our constituents with any great measure of comfort as carrying out the pledges of the Labour party, and as bringing to many distressed people joy and gladness where there has been despair and hopelessness in the days gone by. We cannot feel that this Clause, in its operation, is going to bring any great help to so many of the needy people in our constituency, and we think it well that our own Government should know, and that hon. Members of this House should know, that those are our views in regard to this Measure, and that our hope is that, so far as those other great Measures of social change are concerned, we are not going to have a repetition of what has taken place in connection with this widows' pensions scheme, but that the Government are going to be courageous and bold in their handling of those other Socialist questions, and that they are going to give us at least one great Measure, wide in its ambit, far-reaching in its effect, which will bring to the poverty-stricken people in our country a sense of hope in the days to come through a Labour Government being in office.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: We have just listened to a speech of quite exceptional interest and power, the speech of a man who, however much many of us may differ from him—and we do differ from him—in some fundamental considerations, is, we recognise, sincere and has the courage of his sincerity. I watched, while he made his speech, an air of pensiveness, and even of melancholy, overspreading the countenances of hon. Members opposite. [An HON. MEMBER: "You need not worry about that!"] I am not worrying about that; but I think they were worrying about it, because they realised that that speech to which they have just listened will be made in their constituencies, to their constituents—[Interruption]—a speech which will undoutebdly point the difference between promise and performance.
The hon. Member has described this Measure as pitifully mean and in-
adequate. He, of course, is comparing it with the Bill which ought to have been introduced if those promises to which he alluded had been carried out in their entirety. He has been put off with the excuse that there has been no time to produce the whole, and that this is but an instalment of some much greater Measure that is to some. Hon. Members to-day can still sing that song; they can still go down to their constituents and perhaps, for a time, they can get away with it. But after a while the constituents will ask the same question that was asked by the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen): "When can we expect this Measure? Is it to be a matter of months, or is it to be a matter of years, or is it to be some time in the future after the next Election has taken place?"
We on this side had to suffer at the Election from two things. We suffered what every Government must suffer from, that is to say, the grievances of those who have been disappointed, or who compare their circumstances with those of others who have received benefits which have not come to them. We also suffered from the fact that hon. Members opposite and their friends in their party were not content with pointing out anomalies and inequalities—I will not go so far as to say injustices, but anomalies and inequalities—but they said, "If we had been in office, those anomalies and those inequalities would never have been created, and, if you send us to office, they will be immediately removed." The hon. Member for Camlachie is disposed to taunt the Conservative party with having learnt nothing from the Election. He, at any rate, has learned something since the Election and since his own Friends came into office. He has learned that the difficulties which we had to face are difficulties which have got to be faced by any Government, no matter to what party it belongs, and that those who, while out of office and free from all responsibilities, are reckless enough to make promises without having first thoroughly acquainted themselves with the practicability of carrying them out, must expect, when they once take their seats on those benches, to suffer such reproaches as they have been writhing under during the last 20 minutes.
On the Second Reading of this Bill, I said that, in the course of the Committee stage, we should offer the most strenuous opposition to those parts of the Bill which we felt to be seriously defective, and we have endeavoured to keep that promise in the discussions upon Clause 1. We have now spent two days and more, including a night, on the discussion of a single Clause in the Bill; but, after all, even the time that we have spent upon this Clause is not disproportionate to its importance in the Bill, because everybody recognises that this Clause is the Bill. It is the backbone of the Bill. It is the most important Clause, not merely as regards the number of persons affected, or even as regards cost, but as regards the principles which are affected by its Operation.
We have had numerous speeches upon the comparative advantages of contributory and non-contributory pensions. The hon. Member for Camlachie is in favour of giving non-contributory pensions to everybody. The party opposite profess on the platform to be in favour of the same thing, but in practice it does not work out that way, and, as a matter of fact, unless some miracle happens, unless, as the hon. Member said there were to be such a prodigious revival in trade during the next three years as would create a whole new class of super-tax payers, and incidentally, of course, raise the general level of prosperity in the country, it is quite certain that the country could not afford a scheme of non-contributory pensions. [AN HON. MEMBER: "That is not true."] The hon. Member is a little discourteous in saying that it is not true. He might well say, "That is not my opinion," and I agree that it is a matter of opinion, but it is just the difference between the back bench and the front bench. The front bench, who have, as they have told us on several occasions, begun to think, take one view, and the back bench, which has not yet begun to think, takes another view.

Mr. STEPHEN: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to say that I and my colleagues believe that the present number of super-tax payers, and the income of the country to-day, are sufficient, if taxation is sufficiently heavy on those who can bear it, to provide for a non-contributory scheme.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I quite appreciate that the hon. Gentleman does believe that, but of course, if he were sitting on the front bench instead of on a back bench, he would then change his mind. Taking the Clause with its very limited contribution to the system of non-contributory pensions, even so, it goes, in our opinion, a great deal further than is justifiable. The hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary, in particular, has devoted herself many times to a justification of it on the ground that we of the Conservative party, in the Act of 1925, had ourselves departed from the contributory principle in giving pensions to pre-Act widows whose husbands had paid no contributions. I have never denied that that was a lapse from strict consistency in our Act, and, in fact, I have stated that that was my view.
I must remind the Committee once again of the special circumstances which in my view, advocate as I am of contributory social systems, justified that departure so far as it went. By giving pensions and allowances to the widows of men who died soon after the passing of the Act, we put the children of widows whose husbands had died just before the passing of the Act in a worse position than they were in before, because those children, during the course of their lives, would have to compete against children whose mothers had been given pensions and allowances, and who, therefore, would start with greater advantages in life than the children of pre-Act widows would get. In other words, we, by our own act, had definitely worsened the position of the pre-Act widow with children who had to compete with children starting with these advantages. Having, as I say, by our own act worsened the position of those children, we had to see that that wrong was put right, and we could only do it by giving allowances in respect of the children of pre-Act widows. Of course, it was no use to give the allowances to the children alone; we had also to give the pension to the widow—not for the sake of the widow, but for the sake of the children. That was shown by the fact that the pension for the widow ceased when the allowance for the children ceased.
That, of course, was the distinction between the widows dealt with under the 1925 Act and the widows dealt with under this Clause. Under
the Act it was a pension given to widows only for a short period, while her children were young and were not able to assist her in the income of the house-hold. This Clause gives pensions to widows for their lives, and surely that is a distinction between the two cases which absolutely delivers us from any justifiable charge of inconsistency. I need hardly, perhaps, labour the point, because the question is not only one of the period during which the widow gets the pension, but there is also an enormous difference in the number of the widows themselves. Here we are dealing, I understand, with something like 500,000, and under our Act it was, I suppose, less than 150,000. But I think the other case that I have been putting against the difference is the stronger, and to my mind that is the real distinction between our system and the very much more far-reaching proposal contained in this Clause.
Of course, it is agreed that there is a fundamental difference between our selves and hon. Members opposite in that they are in favour of giving non-contributory pensions, even though it be theoretical rather than practical, while we are in favour of giving contributory pensions and we have, as we believe, solid grounds for considering that to be the better principle. Where this Clause is, to my mind, so lamentable is in the indiscriminate nature of its benefits. I consider it is a scandal that we should be giving free pensions of 10s. a week for life to people in receipt of £5 a week. What is the justification for that when you put along side it all those which I will not now discuss in detail, but which have been numerous in the course of our discussions, of people who are in need and who are not going to be touched by the Clause?

Mr. MACKINDER: You have given bigger pensions. You have given thousands a year to people with more than £5 a week.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think we need complicate matters with the discussion of individual pensions in the case of distinguished men, if that is what the hon. Member is referring to. That is an old subject, but rather a different one. I am arguing a different
point. After all, it is my speech and I am entitled to choose my own line of argument. I was speaking of the indiscriminate nature of the benefit and I said it seemed to me a monstrous thing that you should be giving these free pensions to people who admittedly are not in want of them—because everyone will admit that there must be such cases though there may be a difference of opinion as to the number—and at the same time withholding them from people who need them and who are not touched by the Clause. We were not allowed on the Clause to discuss the case of the spinster, but you are going to have them and many other classes of persons who will be aggrieved at being left out. There is the case, of course, of the widows of people who never were insured and never were in insurable occupation, who are not touched by the Bill. They had no legitimate grievance as long as pensions were only going to people under an insurance scheme, but when pensions are being given on this scale without any contribution at all those people, in my view, have a justifiable complaint. We had cases brought up of widows of policemen who died before 1918. If they died within three years of retirement they came in. If they had not died soon enough they were shut out. That is the sort of anomaly which it is very easy to make a story about on the public platform, and which certainly will prove just as embarrassing to hon. Members on that side as some of their speeches were to us at the last election. There is the case of the post-Act widows, the case we were discussing earlier to-day, of widows of men who came into insurance after the Act was passed, started to pay contributions and then died. Those widows have been shut out too, and they are going to be worse off than those widows whose husbands never paid any contributions. That is a very hard case. I think there is going to be a very great deal of difficulty in defending the with-holding of pensions from these widows.
I have had many cases brought to my notice as perhaps other Members have too or, if they have not, they will. I had a case the other day of a widow whose husband was a voluntary contributor. Here it was not only the number of his contributions, but the fact that he was paying the employer's contribution as
well as his own. He paid a number of contributions and then died. There was no pension for his widow. Again there is no injustice in a case of that kind so long as we are sticking to a contributory system. The words quoted by the hon. Lady from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) are perfectly applicable to any insurance system. You must have a minimum number of contributions. But, of course, when you have the two systems side by side in the same Act, a number of people who are upon a contributory system and have to pay their contributions or forfeit their right to pension, and at the same time people who pay nothing receiving good pensions, you cannot help having these grievances and injustices. If we did not press our Amendment, if we only used it as a demonstration, it is because, even if we brought those people in, it would really only make a new grievance as compared with the position of those who have to pay the full contributions, and much more besides, because the husband did not happen to die soon in his insurance career but late and the widow got the benefit so long after those whose husbands died at the beginning of the Act. All these difficulties arise out of the want of a guiding principle in this Clause. It comes back to this, that if you are going to give, whether it be pensions or whether it be any other kind of State assistance, broadcast at the expense of the taxpayer without any contribution from the beneficiaries, there is really only one principle which you can adopt and which you ought to adopt, and that is the principle of need. You may settle how you like what shall constitute need. That is a matter for argument and arrangement. But you ought not, in view of the great inequality which exists between the means of different taxpayers, to draw money out of all taxpayers in order to give it to those who are quite well enough off to do without it. That was the principle which was recognised by the Prime Minister in the speech to which allusion has been made more than once in the course of our discussions. I do not know whether, when he made that observation, he had consulted with the Minister of Health. I think it is very likely that he had not, but that it seemed to him obviously the right principle if you are going to dis-
tribute non-contributory pensions. It has not been followed out in the Bill. It has not been followed out in the Clause. We have not been able to persuade the Government to accept any Amendment which would have introduced the principle adopted by the Prime Minister. That being so, the Clause remains, after all our discussions, as vicious as it was when we first began to discuss it, and we, at any rate, intend to go into the Lobby against it.

Mr. GREENWOOD: It is not often that a Member of this House stands at this Box and has a fusillade directed at him from two corners of the House. I have hitherto been fortunate enough to escape a cross fire. Both my hon. Friend the Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) during the time they were in double harness put the same point as to the time of the next Measure. Every Member of this House knows what a foolish question that is. It is a question which is lacking in political sincerity. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is!"] That is what I say. No one can, at this moment, give any undertaking as to months or years when such a Measure is likely to be introduced into this House. King's Speeches come with unfailing regularity. Members might look forward with expectancy to the next King's Speech, and the one that will follow that, and the one that will follow that, and in each of these I have no doubt they will find more and more all the pledges given by my party duly honoured.
I am very glad to have the advice of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston. But his advice was that this Bill is going to bring us what he would regard as well merited unpopularity in the country, and he, like some of his hon. Friends, suffered from the delusion that their defeat at the General Election was merely due to their Pensions Act. They are under a misapprehension. It was four and a half years of palsied government, of misguided activity, that led them to take their broken ranks from this side of the House to that. When we put this Measure by the side of other Measures we may be perfectly sure that we shall not meet with the same end. The right hon. Gentleman's criticisms of Clause 1 have, of course, been dealt with
before. First, he says that we are going in this Clause much further than can be justified, and we have had his apologia in respect of his breach of his own principle of contributions and his admission of the pre-Act widows with children. There were, he said, special circumstances which justified departure from the principle of contributions. These children were being placed in a worse position because of the grant of allowances to the children of post-Act widows. They had their lives before them, and he felt sure that he was justified in breaking away from this sacred principle of Conservatism.
I would make the same plea. I have made a further breach in the principle of contributions because of the special circumstances; because there are, in almost every working-class street in this land, young widows and old widows living cheek by jowl, and the young widow is getting a pension and the old widow is getting none. These elderly widows have still part of their lives before them. I am proud to be in a position to give them a pension because of the lives that lie behind them, and because these women have, in the over-whelming majority of cases, served the nation by the children they have brought into the world. I say that these working-class women are as much entitled to a pension at the hands of the community as the young post-Act widow is entitled to a pension. That seems to me to justify this break-away from the principle of contributions.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the indiscriminate nature of the benefits, and talked of some scandal about free pensions to women who have £5 a week. It was not a scandal when he gave free pensions to pre-Act widows, with children, most of whom would be as well off as the pre-Act widows of elderly years who are to get pensions under this Bill. If it be a scandal that a certain number of elderly widows with means will receive a pension under this Bill, a scandal of exactly the same kind was perpetrated by the right hon. Gentleman when he admitted, without contribution, the pre-Act widow, with children. It may be that he gave her the pension because of the children, but the fact is that he gave her a pension, and she had means. What a shocking thing! I do it for the perfectly sound reason that you cannot be-
gin to pick and choose, and if you do in your scheme give pensions, without an inquiry into means, for one set of people, another set of people being brought into the Act are entitled and ought to be treated in precisely the same way.
This criticism about the scandal of rich widows going to the post offices, in their limousines, to draw pensions of 10s. a week, is coupled with an allegation that we refuse to give pensions to a class in need. I can assure the Committee that were we to make the necessary investigations to ensure that the rich widow in her limousine did not get her pension, at the end of it I should have a debit balance, and there would be nothing to pay out to the widows or the people excluded from the Act, and who are in need. These people who are in need to-day and outside this Measure are no creation of mine. I did not invent them. They were there in 1925. This new interest on the part of hon. Members opposite in the needy poor is to be welcomed, but the underlying implications of speech after speech from the benches opposite is that in the last five months this Government has, somehow or other, produced these needy persons. They were there before. It is true that we are not in a position to-day to deal with all of them, but it is not the creation of a new anomaly to deal with half-a-million of them.
The right hon. Gentleman complained about two systems running side by side. I should like the Committee to appreciate the logic of what that means. If to meet any human need you introduce a system of contributory insurance and you do not have two systems running side by side, there will be needy people left out, and they can never come in. Does it mean that hon. Members opposite do not want to do anything for the pre-Act needy widow?

HON. MEMBERS: Answer!

Sir K. WOOD: We will answer.

Mr. GREENWOOD: To be true to their principles, they cannot. If you have a system of widows' pensions introduced by any date, I do not care what date, if you want to avoid two systems running side by side you can only do so by excluding the widows who are widows when your scheme comes into force. Is that the intention of hon. Members opposite?

HON. MEMBERS: Answer!

Sir K. WOOD: We will answer all right.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I doubt very much whether the right hon. Gentleman will try to answer. Two horses have been ridden by the right hon. Gentleman during the Debate—this insistence on a contributory scheme, and the muddle you are in if you wish to bring in the pre-Act widow, and at the same time a desire to extend the scheme to other needy people. On their own view they have no business to be doing that. They ought to be doing it by a system of contributory insurance, which, obviously, cannot be applied even to the needy spinsters, with whom the right hon. Gentleman has fallen in love. I am charged by the right hon. Gentle-man that there is no guiding principle in Clause 1. He says that we ought not to use the taxpayers' money to help people who are well off. The right hon. Gentleman did that himself in his own Act. If you give one penny of State contribution to any insurance scheme which has no means limit, you are using State resources to help people who are well off. Under the Act of 1925, which applies no means test, there is a State contribution of £4,000,000 per year, provided in part by very needy taxpayers to give subsidies to well-to-do people who are getting pensions under the Act of 1925. That is an argument which only needs to be stated to carry its own refutation on its face.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the problem of need. There are two ways of dealing with the problem of need. One way is the inquisitorial method, and the other is a method not necessarily applied to individuals, but applied to classes of the community. The whole basis of our health insurance schemes, from the time of the first Bill, introduced by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), down to to-day, has been that it is necessary for the community to make social provision to meet the needs of a certain class of people who are, on the whole, needy people. They are the working people of this country. They are the people for whom these insurance schemes have been specially devised. We have brought nobody into this new scheme except the very class of people for whom the Liberal Act of Par-
liament of 1911 originally made provision, and for whom the Act of 1925 made provision. We have taken the principle of need, and we have taken the principle of need as it has been applied by successive Governments to the great bulk of manual workers, and the less paid sections of the community outside the manual workers.
The right hon. Gentleman said, and it is perfectly true, that Clause 1 is the backbone of the Bill, and he warned me that when we went to the constituencies we should meet with reproaches and criticisms.

Sir K. WOOD: Hear, hear. You will.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I am not ashamed of Clause 1. I am prepared to go into the constituencies, even the right hon. Gentleman's own constituency, and to stand 'against such criticism as may be brought against me. I have never rated Clause 1 too highly, but Clause 1 does more for the widows of this country than the whole Act of 1925. It will bring within its ambit 2½ times as many widows as are enjoying the benefits of the Act of 1925 to-day. It will bring in at least 80 per cent. of the widows of this country. It will bring in the great bulk of the needy widows of this country, and the widows who have reached that time of life when economic independence is a hard thing to attain. I am not ashamed of the Bill. The hon. Member for Camlachie said that this is a mean Bill—

Sir K. WOOD: Hear, hear!

Mr. GREENWOOD: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's conversion to Poplarism, and indeed it is most terrifying in the person of the right hon. Member for West Woolwich. At any rate it is a very considerable contribution, I place it no higher than that. This is not a perfect Bill; it is a partial Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I have said it before, but it does some considerable measure of tardy justice to a large class of people who were ignored by the late Government and so far as the vast majority of hon. Members on this side of the House are concerned I do not think they share the views of the hon. Member for Camlachie. With me they regard this Clause as an honest and immediate attempt to deal with a large and pressing problem. When I am asked why
a scheme complete in all its details governing all the ramifications of social insurance in this country was not introduced before we did anything I say that it was our duty to do what we could as quickly as possible for the maximum number of people.

Mr. E. BROWN: The Minister of Health has described this Clause as a partial clause. The answer to that is, in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith) that it ought not to have been partial, it should have been impartial. The right hon. Gentleman is, of course, entitled to complain of the speech of the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) but at any rate the language used by the hon. Member for Camlachie was much more moderate in tone than the language used by the right hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) about the measure of the right hon. Gentleman for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) for, speaking in Glasgow on that Bill, the right hon. Member for Shettleston described it as the most heartless and contemptuous fraud ever perpetrated on a helpless people. At any rate we can mark a growth in moderation of the Members from Clydeside, which I hope will be noted in Scotland. [An HON. MEMBER: "And in Leith."] I have been able to take care of Leith in the last two elections in spite of hon. Members, and I think we will leave the future to take care of itself.
9.0 p.m.
This Clause raises a most important issue. Apart from all party challenges about contributory and non-contributory schemes the Clause has a very real issue, and I am glad it is in its present form because it will enable Parliament and the country to appreciate just how far the nation can go within its resources on the line advocated by hon. Members opposite. This is a partial Bill, and after having listened to the discussion about finance and after hearing the Parliamentary Secretary turn down our Amendment to lower the age from 55 to 45—not now in the Clause—the Minister says that 55 is the age at which our economic power—[An HON. MEMBER: "You did not go on with it."] We did not go on with our Amendment after it was turned down by the Minister. When I support a Measure—I mean what I say—I only bring forward Amendments in order to
hear what the Minister has to say, and if it is impossible to work them into the scope of the Bill I have no intention of being fractious or trying to score a party point by forcing divisions which can be used outside the House for party purposes. When hon. Members opposite get a chance to move Amendments to other people's Bills I hope they will he as moderate in their views of their opponents as we have been.
This raises a very serious issue. We are entitled to appeal to hon. Members opposite, even if we do not reproach them, that before they next descend upon the constituencies to discuss the question of a partial non-contributory insurance scheme they will make some calculations as to what it would really cost to do what they advocate and bring in a complete non-contributory scheme. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health in his speech foreshadowed large changes, but it will be quite unfair for hon. Members opposite to suggest that they have only done this because they could only do it on this line quickly. If we are to have a non-contributory pension scheme I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make a statement in this House as to what it would cost to carry out their scheme and as to where he can command the money to finance such a scheme.
Much has been said about the anomalies of a contributory scheme; now we are getting the anomalies of a noncontributory scheme, and with that non-contributory scheme on a partial basis. In fact, the whole Bill bristles with anomalies and injustices inevitable in the case of a contributory scheme. We welcome this Clause because it removes a certain hardship flt in every city and industrial centre, yet, nevertheless, the fact remains that because this method has been chosen, hastily and partially, we have created a whole new system of anomalies and injustices which will be felt. The Minister of Health accused the right hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) with having fallen in love with the spinster. I would rather be in the position of the right hon. Member for West Woolwich—fallen in love with the spinster—than in the position of the Minister of Health who has jilted the spinster before she has had a chance.

Sir K. WOOD: I ought to say in justice to myself that of course it depends on the spinster.

Mr. BROWN: I understood that in this case the right hon. Gentleman s love was all embracing and that he was speaking for all spinsters. The next time the Prime Minister of the Socialist party talks about people in need I hope he will make inquiries as to what he means by that phrase. In my judgment this Clause has made it imperative that before any party goes to the country in the future and talks about giving pensions to people in need they will define two things, first, what they mean by people in need, and, secondly, how they propose to finance any change to meet the needs of these people.

Mr. McKINLAY: rose—

Mr. BROWN: There is a great deal more which one could say about this Clause, and all I can say in reply to hon. Members opposite about the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) is this—

Mr. McKINLAY: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member speaking on behalf of the Liberal party?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order. Hon. Members must bear in mind that they have no right to interrupt the Debate unless the hon. Member in possession gives way.

Sir K. WOOD: On a point of Order, Sir, I would like to call attention to the fact that the hon. Member for Partick (Mr. McKinlay) has repeatedly risen in the course of these Debates on what he calls points of Order, which are not, in fact, points of Order. The hon. Member must know by this time, even though he is a young Member, that he is not entitled to do so, and I hope, Sir, that you will have regard to the conduct of Debate and to the fact that this is very unfair to other hon. Members.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think I ought to point out that this is the first occasion on which the hon. Member for Partick has risen since I have been in the Chair, but I would urge upon hon. Members to keep clearly in mind the
fact that they have no right to address the Committee unless the Member in possession chooses to give way to them.

Mr. BROWN: This is the first time that I have ever refused to give way to an hon. Member and I have done so for this reason. The other night when I had only six minutes, the hon. Member for Partick rose, presumably on a point of Order, but only to make a remark which robbed me of two minutes of my time and had no relation whatever to the Debate.

Mr. McKINLAY: On a point of Order, I want to know if no allowance is to be made for a young Member's innocence.

Mr. BROWN: We should have to write an entire cycle of new "Songs of Innocence," in order to describe the hon. Member for Partick in relation to that delightful term. I welcome this Clause for two reasons. First, because it will remove great hardships and anxieties from at least 500,000 widows; and, secondly, because it places in perspective what can be done inside the limits set by a Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer and not a Tory or Liberal Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Captain GUNSTON: We have heard some amusing remarks to-night about spinsters and widows and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) has been accused of having a special regard for the spinsters. May I say on behalf of those on the back benches on this side, who took a rather active part in the discussions on this Bill, that we very much appreciate the attention and the answers to detailed points which the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary has always given us. I think, however, that one of the most astounding speeches ever made by the Minister of Health—and he is always surprising us—was made this afternoon when he tried to give a new definition of "need." When we challenged hon. Members opposite regarding the Prime Minister's pledge that every widow in need would have a pension, they laughed in a rather uncomfortable manner. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I quite sympathise with hon. Members opposite, if they have to go down to their constituents and say "our Prime Minister made a pledge, but we have no intention of carrying it out." The new
explanation that has been given of the Prime Minister's pledge is that when hon. Members opposite talked about "the widow in need" as the only standard, they did not mean widows individually, but widows as a class. That is the new definition and I shall examine how it is going to help hon. Members when they come to explain their broken promises to the electors.
The Minister went on to say that of course these pledges could not be carried out at once, and that it would require many King's Speeches to do so. I do not think that the leaders of the Labour party said so in the country at the last Election. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, they did!"] They said they could give widows pensions, but we are now told that they meant a policy of installments. It is quite true that if you want to buy and furnish a house you can pay by instalments, but that is a contract and the man who sells the house or the furniture understands it. Hon. Members opposite did not tell the electorate that their pledges were going to be redeemed by instalments and that the electors them-selves would all be dead and in their graves before many of those instalments were forthcoming. If hon. Members opposite are in difficulties regarding anomalies, that is entirely their own fault. I believe that the Minister of Health described this as a Bill to remove anomalies, but it is going to create anomalies. We knew in connection with our Insurance Act that there were bound to be anomalies, but we could always say in regard to any hard case which arose, "We know it is a hard case, but the person concerned is not an insured person." Directly you get away from the idea of insurance, you come up against very grave difficulties.
I was speaking in the country the other day on this Bill and, as I always try to be fair, I was pointing out that numbers of widows would undoubtedly benefit under it. Of course I had to point out the people who would be excluded, and when I began to go through all the classes of people who would be left out, I found—as it was not an all-night sit-ting—that I had to cut short my speech. Hon. Members who have listened to these Debates must have heard of some dangerous anomalies which are going to arise
and are going to be difficult of explanation. How is one to explain the case of the widow of a man who served for 23 months in the Great War, or any war, and who died within three years after the end of that war? His widow will not get a pension. Hon. Members cannot say that the people are not insured and it does not comfort the widow to tell her that, although she may be in need, the Prime Minister's pledge does not mean individuals, but a class. How is one to explain the case of the widow of a smallholder, in indifferent circumstances, who is not pensioned, while in the same village the widow of a man who is employed by a brewer to look after a public-house will get the pension? How is one to explain the grant of a pension to the widow of a man who sells drink and the refusal of a pension to the widow of a man who produces food? That is one of the anomalies which they are going to have great difficulty in explaining.
I would like to refer to an Amendment that I had on the Paper, which could not be called, quite naturally, owing to the large number of Amendments, but it referred to a widow whose means are very limited, a widow in need, who does not come under this Bill, but who is the sole support of a sick relative. She will not get a pension. You will have a very well-to-do widow living in one street in a village and getting a pension, and you will have in another street the crying disgrace of a needy widow, without a pension, who is the sole support of a sick relative. How are you going to justify it? It is no good hon. Members opposite saying they have removed some anomalies. They have, but they have created many more, and they cannot make the excuse that we could, that this is an Insurance Bill, nor can they make the excuse that the country cannot afford it, because the Minister said that this will be no burden on industry. I would like to remind the Committee of the famous saying of Abraham Lincoln:
You can fool some of the people all the time, and all the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.
The Liberal party attempted it, and look at them now. The Labour party are attempting it, and when they go to the country and cannot explain why they have made no attempt to carry out their
pledges, I suggest that in a few years their numbers will be no greater than those of the Liberal party in this House.

Mr. SEXTON: I would not have risen at all had it not been for the very unfortunate speech of the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen). The hon. Member made the statement that he was entitled to offer legitimate criticism. I am not going to object to that, but my point is that his criticism was most illegitimate and puts him in a somewhat difficult position. I agree the devil's disciple is always in a difficult position, and the hon. Member's speech was an embodiment of the devil's disciple. He professed to speak for influential Members of the vigorous body known as the Independent Labour party. I question in my own mind whether the hon. Member does speak even for the body which he describes as the Independent Labour party. I question very much if he speaks for the Members of that party inside this House, because I know some of them who do not agree with his speech to-night. I raise no objection to the hon. Member directing what he calls legitimate criticism in a legitimate place at a legitimate time, but he is choosing his own ground, and he is speaking, not to his colleagues, but to the world at large from these benches. That is why I take this opportunity of enlightening the world outside this House that, as far as I am concerned—I was one of the authors of the Independent Labour party before the hon. Member was ever heard tell of—I do not agree with his criticism.
What is his alternative? It will be interesting to know, if a division is called, whether the hon. Member is logically going to carry out what he calls his legitimate criticism. I shall wait with very much interest to see whether he does or not. In some respects some of us are not altogether satisfied with the instalment proposed by the Minister of Health and would like to see more, but what is his alternative? If he is logical at all in his opposition, the hon. Member will go into the Lobby with his new-found Friends, and I want to know whether the hon. Member will take the responsibility for doing that. During the General Election I pinned my faith to a bigger Measure than this, but is that singular to the Labour party? That is the game you all play, every time there is a General Election. I am prepared to go down to my
constituents and to say that, little or much as it may be, this Bill is at least a step in the right direction and that we ought to accept it as an instalment. I am very sorry to have to say what I have said, but it had to be said, because there is a limit even to the toleration of colleagues on this side of the House.
I will now say a word or two with respect to the ex-Minister of Health and his colleagues on the other side of the House, who roll like a sweet morsel over their tongues the giving something for nothing and hold up their hands in horror at what they call people in comfortable circumstances receiving pensions. My memory travels back to the time when I was leading a deputation to the father of the right hon. Gentleman the ex-Minister of Health, and begging for pensions of five shillings a week for old men of 70, and he held up his hands in holy horror at the idea of pauperising the people. That is the tradition of the party opposite. The whole path of the history of the Conservative party is strewn with the corpses of the very thing the right hon. Gentleman himself complained of in his very unfortunate reference. Let me give one or two cases. The Tory party gave pensions to naval and military heroes and their descendants, some of them with more than one widow within the meaning of the Act. Some of these pensions enjoyed by the descendants of these heroes this very House not long ago commuted at anything from £25,000 to £40,000.

Mr. FOOT: The 26 years' purchase was done by the last Labour Government.

Mr. SEXTON: I only want to say this, that so far as this Measure goes, although perhaps I am just as keen as anybody else on getting more, I am prepared to say that no man who is responsible for preventing the materialisation of this Measure dare face his constituents afterwards. All this talk of honesty and sincerity is, in my opinion, little less than organised hypocrisy. Compare the emoluments which during the history of the Conservative party have been given to the military and naval heroes with the case I produced to this House yesterday. It was the case of a married soldier who lost his leg and eye in the War, his household goods sold to keep life and body and will together in his wife and family. During the solemn Two
Minutes Silence, while Members of the Cabinet and members of the Royal Family were honouring the gallant dead, this soldier was being tried in one of the police courts of this country for non-payment of local rates and sentenced to 13 days' imprisonment. To add insult to injury, one of the magistrates, a gallant Colonel, wore a Flanders Poppy in his buttonhole.
I am surprised at the indignation of the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen). If this Bill was rejected through his instrumentality and his vote, which his logic would entitle him to use against it if he carried out the logic of his speech, he would go to Camlachie and say: "I defeated this meagre Measure which at least gave you some relief from the horrible conditions you are living in to-day."

Major KINDERSLEY: This Clause raises the principle of contribution or non-contribution to insurance. We have one departure from the principle in our own Act, but, if you analyse it, as has been done by my right hon. Friend, it was hardly a departure because the pension was given to the widow in respect of her children and was taken away from her as soon as her children attained the age of 141. Therefore, I maintain that that was hardly an exception to the contributory principle on which our Act was based. I consider the maintenance of the insurance principle in all these social services to be of the utmost importance to the country. There is a far larger number than hon. Members opposite imagine of people in all classes who have the greatest objection to the system of doles and who have and have always had that spirit of independence for which our people are noted. They regard with the greatest disquiet the tendency to-day to distribute public money on purely arbitrary principles without any regard to means.
There is a far graver aspect even than that. If this sort of thing is continued, as I understand it is going to be continued by the party opposite, it must inevitably end in the destruction of democracy. It always has meant the destruction of any democracy which has gone in for that system of doles, and it must inevitably do so. Hon. Members opposite speak as if there were unlimited
wealth in the country which could be tapped for these purposes. It is my belief that within the next six months the world and this country are going to go through a period of economic and industrial depression such as we have never seen for many years. They will find that it is not so easy to get these millions of money to distribute arbitrarily among the people. It is because I believe that this is a deadly disease which gnaws at the vitals of democracy and has always destroyed it hitherto that I, for my part, shall go into the Lobby with the right hon. Member for Edgbaston (Mr. N. Chamberlain) with an absolutely clear conscience, and I shall be prepared to defend my vote on any platform in the country.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: The other evening, when we were discussing a certain portion of Clause 1, I raised the position of the widow of the share fisherman who lost his life prior to the Act being passed. I saw the Minister privately afterwards, and he said that he would have it cleared up and be able to give an answer later on. I took expert advice, and I find that there is some little doubt which requires clearing up. The doubt arises under the words on page 2:
his normal occupation was at some time within the said period employment in respect of which contributions under the principal Act would have been payable if that Act had been in force at that time.
The position is that the share fisherman did not come into insurance until 1928. Taking the words I have quoted in conjunction with Clause 24, it is not quite clear whether the widows to whom I have referred are included, and I should like a clear statement on that point.

Miss LAWRENCE: The point is quite simple. You will see that the Bill says
his normal occupation was at some time within the said period employment in respect of which contributions under the principal Act would have been payable.
That would mean that, as contributions would have been payable under the Insurance Act of 1925, under which share fishermen were included, their widows would come under the Act.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: They were not included in the 1925 Act—not until 1928. That is the point at issue. Clause 24
says that this Act shall be construed with the Act of 1925, while the Act of 1928 is not quoted.

Miss LAWRENCE: I think that the hon. Member is right. I will report to my right hon. Friend with a view to seeing whether anything can be done. Share fishermen are in the 1928 Act, and not in this Bill, and it is a point that must be looked into.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: If they are not included in this Clause, will it be possible to introduce an Amendment on the Report stage to include them?

Miss LAWRENCE: I will promise to look into it very carefully.

Major McKENZIE WOOD: I am surprised at the statement which we have just heard from the Parliamentary Secretary. I have gone into this matter carefully, and I have come to the conclusion that there is no doubt that share fishermen are included, but, if the Parliamentary Secretary is in any doubt, I hope that it will be removed at the earliest possible moment. I think, however, that there is no doubt that share fishermen are included, because in Clause 24 there is a definition of what is meant by the principal Act, and the Clause says that the principal Act is to be construed as meaning the principal Act, as amended by this Bill.

Sir K. WOOD: It simply says it may be cited. The words are:
"This Act may be cited as the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1929, and shall be construed as one with the principal Act, and that Act and this Act may be cited together as the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Acts, 1925 and 1929."

Major WOOD: That is what I mean; it is to be construed.

Sir K. WOOD: No, it is to be cited.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I am sure that all hon. Members are desirous of seeing this class brought in, and, if the hon. Lady will make sure that they are put in, I shall be perfectly satisfied.

Miss LAWRENCE: I have promised that I will look into it. I am not certain at this stage, but I will look into the point.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I would like the hon. Lady—[Interruption.] I think
that I am justified in asking the hon. Lady if she will see to it that they are included. [Interruption.] I have often heard hon. Members opposite pleading for their constituents, and I have a perfect right to ask that my constituents shall have consideration—

Miss LAWRENCE: I think that the hon. Member has raised a substantial point, and I can only say that I will look into it.

Mr. E. BROWN: If, unhappily, they are not in the Bill, surely we are entitled to ask the Minister to put them in, since the Government, up to this moment, thought that they were in. The Committee will agree that, if they are not in, they ought to be in. It is not a matter that interests the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) and his constituents alone; these gallant men are all round the coast of Great Britain.

Mr. J. JONES: On a point of Order. I would like to ask if there is going to be unlimited opportunity for Members on the other side to talk, while we on our side are to keep our mouths shut?

Major ROSS: I wish to raise a point about the inconsistency in this Clause with regard to the widows of ex-service men. In Sub-section 1 (a) are two paragraphs which have at all times been part of the Bill. Then there are two more paragraphs, which were added, one as an Amendment which was on the Paper, and the second as a manuscript Amendment. When I put this point on a previous occasion, the Parliamentary Secretary was rather inclined to brush aside the argument—

Miss LAWRENCE: We were then dealing with war service, and I brushed aside share fishermen and everything else because previous occupation had nothing to do with war service. I said that if they served during the War, whatever their occupation—it did not matter two pins if they were share fishermen or anything else—they were included.

Major ROSS: I was not going to trouble the hon. Lady with the question of share fishermen. The point I want to make is that we have a distinction between paragraphs (i) and (ii), and paragraphs (iii) and (iv). Paragraphs
(iii) and (iv) deal exclusively with ex-service men, and, in their case, there is this distinction: two years' service during the War or during naval or military operations is required from ex-service men in order that their widows shall qualify under this Bill. In paragraphs (i) and (ii), which deal with those who are not ex-service men, that condition of two years does not come in. That condition is very unjust. The hon. Lady, when dealing with the point before, said that the widows of ex-service men were adequately compensated under the Ministry of Pensions. They do not all get pensions, and I would draw the hon. Lady's attention to the principle which is introduced into this Bill, in a later Clause, by which those who are classed as industrial casualties are compensated as such under the Work-man's Compensation Act, and at the same time are able to benefit under this Bill. It is surely unjust that those who are industrial casualties should be allowed this double compensation, while those who are casualties in the country's service, in naval or military operations, should not be entitled to any such benefit. I cannot understand the explanation which the hon. Lady gave, because there are many widows of ex-service men who have died since the War who have not pensions, and it is the principle of this Bill that industrial casualties shall receive compensation as well as compensation which is received under the Work-men's Compensation Act.
As regards the fourth of these paragraphs it is unjust and a very considerable anomaly that two years' service as a minimum should be insisted upon as regards naval and military operations, because it is notorious that, excepting the South African War, very few campaigns extended beyond two years, and it would be very difficult to find men who, even if they had served throughout, had two years' service and whose widows would thus qualify under this paragraph. The right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of the Bill is making a distinction which is particularly unfair to the ex-service men. He is making a discrimination between a man who comes under the Act in the ordinary course of industry and a man who comes under it owing to his service in war. I know it is urged that many ex-service men will
come under one or other of the first two paragraphs, but from the fact that these two other paragraphs have been introduced it is clear that the Ministry think there must be ex-service men whose dependants will not come under the first two, and the Clause, as it stands, is grossly unfair to the dependants of those men.

Mr. J. JONES: I shall not detain the Committee long. I never do. [Interruption.] If you are so anxious about a Division, you ought to have moved the Closure long before this. The wonder to me is, that, as the late Government had an overwhelming majority for four and a half years, all these anomalies which have been brought forward in this Debate should still exist. Hon. Members opposite had complete power to do as they liked for four and a half years, but they never thought about all these anomalies until they lost their majority. Now they have come along in the virtuous position of people who have broken all the Commandments and are asking the Labour Government to do what they had not the pluck to do themselves. They claim to be especial friends of all ex-service men—Army and Navy pensioners and all the others, including those who go down to the sea in ships. But men went down to the sea in ships when the hon. Member opposite was a member of the Government. Then the hon. Member opposite talks about getting something for nothing. If there were not people in this country who get something for nothing he would not be in this House.
As to all this virtuous parade on the part of hon. Members opposite, I only want to say that I wish to God they meant it. The real test will be for them to go into the Lobby against this Clause. Let them face the music. I am prepared to go down to my constituency, where there are as many seafarers as anywhere else, men who have gone through the Army and through the Navy and all the other Services, and deal with this point. Those men know that this Bill will mean an increase of 50 per cent. in the numbers of those who are entitled to get pensions. That is the real truth. What we may do in the future does not matter. Some of you will draw pensions and never work for them, and never contribute anything towards them. Knowing all about non-contributory pensions it is remark-
able how enthusiastic you are against them. I believe in pensions for everybody—just the same as you do, when you chose your parents properly. They can have pensions from the day they go into the cradle until the day they go into the soap box. It is contemptible cant. I say it again, it is contemptible cant to hear these crocodile tears. [Laughter.] You cannot express it in any other way.
The Bill does not contain all it ought to have in it, but I know what would happen to it if it had. I can see all the enthusiastic supporters of those who are left out of the Bill walking into the Lobby to defeat us because we were extravagant and threw the nation's money away. We cannot touch them at that game. They know how to throw money away. Their friends the manufacturers are going to make huge profits out of the nation's difficulty. All the profiteers can have a free run for their money. This Debate proves to me the hollowness of the whole situation. We have been wasting hours on matters which ought to

have taken only minutes. Arguments have been advanced day after day and will be advanced again to the end of the chapter about the extravagance of giving people something for nothing—and this from those who have done nothing else but give other people's money away! Every manufacturer in my constituency will in a couple of months time have 75 per cent. of his rates taken off, in spite of the fact that some of them have just declared dividends of from 5 to 17½ per cent. That is not something for nothing! No, that is paying honour to the services they have rendered to the party opposite. I say the vote ought to be taken now on this Clause, because everything has been said that could be said and, because hon. Members opposite will not oppose this Clause, there being no real honesty of purpose in their criticisms.

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 275; Noes, 98.

Division No. 35.]
AYES.
[9.54 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Compton, Joseph
Harbord, A.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Cove, William G.
Hardie, George D.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Daggar, George
Harris, Percy A.


Alpass, J. H.
Dallas, George
Haycock, A. W.


Ammon, Charles George
Dalton, Hugh
Hayday, Arthur


Angell, Norman
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Hayes, John Henry


Arnott, John
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)


Aske, Sir Robert
Day, Harry
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Herriotts, J.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Dickson, T.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)


Barnes, Alfred John
Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Hoffman, P. C.


Barr, James
Dukes, C.
Hollins, A.


Batey, Joseph
Duncan, Charles
Hopkin, Daniel


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Ede, James Chuter
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Bellamy, Albert
Edge, Sir William
Horrabin, J. F.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Edmunds, J. E.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph


Benson, G.
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Egan, W. H.
Isaacs, George


Bevan, Aneurln (Ebbw Vale)
Elmiey, Viscount
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


Birkett, W. Norman
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Blindell, James
Foot, Isaac
Johnston, Thomas


Bowen, J. W.
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)


Brockway, A. Fenner
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Bromfield, William
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)


Bromley, J.
Gibbins,. Joseph
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Brothers, M.
Gill, T. H.
Kelly, W. T.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Glassey, A. E.
Kennedy, Thomas


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)
Gosling, Harry
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Gossling, A. G.
Kinley, J.


Buchanan, G.
Gould, F.
Kirkwood, D.


Burgess, F. G.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Knight, Holford


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Granville, E.
Lang, Gordon


Caine, Derwent Hall-
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne).
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George


Cameron, A. G.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Lathan, G.


Cape, Thomas
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Law, Albert (Bolton)


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Law, A. (Rosendale)


Charleton, H. C.
Groves, Thomas E.
Lawrence, Susan


Chater, Daniel
Grundy, Thomas W.
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)


Church, Major A. G.
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Lawson, John James


Clarke, J. S.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)


Cluse, W. S.
Hall. Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Leach, W.


Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)
Palmer, E. T.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Sorensen, R.


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Perry, S. F.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Lindley, Fred W.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Stephen, Campbell


Lloyd, C. Ellis
Phillips, Dr. Marion
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Longbottom, A. W.
Pole, Major D. G.
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Longden, F.
Potts, John S.
Strauss, G. R.


Lowth, Thomas
Pybus, Percy John
Sullivan, J.


Lunn, William
Quibell, D. J. K.
Sutton, J. E.


Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Rathbone, Eleanor
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


McElwee, A.
Raynes, W. R.
Thurtle, Ernest


McEntee, V. L.
Richards, R.
Tillett, Ben


Mackinder, W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Tinker, John Joseph


McKinlay, A.
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Tout, W. J.


MacLaren, Andrew
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Townend, A. E.


MacNeill-Weir, L.
Ritson, J.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Turner, B.


Mansfield, W.
Romeril, H. G.
Vaughan, D. J.


March, S
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Viant, S. P.


Markham, S. F.
Rothschild, J. de
Walker, J.


Marley, J
Rowson, Guy
Wallace, H. W.


Mathers, George
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Wallhead, Richard C.


Matters, L. W.
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)
Watkins, F. C.


Maxton, James
Sanders, W. S.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Messer, Fred
Sandham, E.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Middleton, G.
Sawyer, G. F.
Wellock, Wilfred


Millar, J. D.
Scott, James
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Mills, J. E.
Sexton, James
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Milner, J.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
West, F. R.


Montague, Frederick
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Westwood, Joseph


Morley, Ralph
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Sherwood, G. H.
White, H. G.


Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Shield, George William
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Mort, D. L.
Shillaker, J. F.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Moses, J. J. H.
Shinwell, E.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Simmons, C. J.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Muff, G.
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Muggeridge, H. T.
Sinkinson, George
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Murnin, Hugh
Sitch, Charles H.
Wise, E. F.


Naylor, T. E.
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)
Womersley, W. J.


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Oldfield, J. R.
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)



Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Mr. B. Smith and Mr. Whiteley.


Paling, Wilfrid
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Purbrick, R.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Ramsbotham, H.


Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Remer, John R.


Atkinson, C.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Ross, Major Ronald D.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Balniel, Lord
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Salmon, Major I.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hammersley, S. S.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Hartington, Marquess of
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Bracken, B.
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Brass, Captain Sir William
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Thomson, Sir F.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Tinne, J. A.


Chapman, Sir S.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Colman, N. C. D.
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Colville, Major D. J.
Long, Major Eric
Turton, Robert Hugh


Cranbourne, Viscount
Mac Robert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Marjoribanks, E. C.
Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Dawson, Sir Philip
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Muirhead, A. J.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Everard, W. Lindsay
O'Neill, Sir H.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Ferguson, Sir John
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William



Fielden, E. B.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Fison, F. G. Clavering
Pilditch, sir Phillp
Captain Margesson and Sir Victor


Ganzonl, Sir John
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Warrender.

CLAUSE 2.—(Extension of right to old age pensions in the case of certain women.)

Mr. WESTWOOD: I beg to move, in page 3, line 42, at the end, to insert the words:
(2) A widow who has attained the age of seventy shall be entitled to an old age pension payable in accordance with the provisions of the principal Act relating to such a pension if she is the widow of a man who would if he had survived have been entitled to an old age pension under the Old Age Pensions Acts, 1908 to 1924, by virtue of Section twenty of the principal Act.
I trust that it will be possible for the Government to accept this Amendment, as both sides of the Committee support me upon the principle of the Amendment. Let me state the reasons why I feel I may claim support from all parts of this Committee. First of all, all through this Debate the Government have declined to accept any Amendment imposing a means test as regards those individuals who would be entitled to get widows' pensions under this Bill, and as this seeks to remove the means test so far as the Acts of 1908 to 1924 are concerned, I think the Amendment ought to be accepted by the Government. The Conservative Opposition have certainly impressed me, as one Member, with their anxiety to remove anomalies, and as there would be an anomaly unless we provided for the removal of the means test in the case of the widow over 70, as it is already removed by Clause 1 so far as widows up to the age of 70 are concerned, I feel sure that in their earnest desire to remove anomalies the Conservative party will support this Amendment. Again, the Liberal party has particularly emphasised the fact that the Government made some references during the Election to a non-contributory scheme, and as this Amendment will give the benefit of Old Age Pensions under the non-contributory Acts of 1908 to 1294, it, therefore, meets some of the claims put forward by the Liberal party also. Therefore as this Amendment, as I have pointed out, meets the arguments which have been submitted from all parts of the Committee, I am hopeful that it will be accepted in the interests of justice to widows over 70 years of age.
Under the existing Acts, and also under this Bill so far as we have gone,
we have removed the means test, first, as regards men over 65 years of age who have been in the insured class, and we have removed the means test as regards widows of men over 65 years of age, those widows having reached the age of 65. We have also, under Clause 1, which has now been approved by the Committee, removed the means test so far as widows from 55 years to 70 years of age are concerned. As I read the Clause, unless this Amendment is accepted it will not remove the means test as regards widows over 70 years of age. They are an ever-diminishing number, and the removal of the means test would not cost too much, and would see justice done to a number of very deserving and aged women. There will be an anomaly—I believe the only anomaly which would be created by this Bill—unless this Amendment is accepted; because with that one exception I do not believe that this Bill has created any anomalies. It has removed 500,000 anomalies.
The anomalies which have been discussed up to the present time are anomalies which were created by the principal Act. If you are going to abolish the means test, so far as widows between the ages of 55 and 70 are concerned, you should also, when they come to old age at 70 years, remove the means test there; and you will find on page 7 of the Financial Memorandum on this Bill that the means test is to be removed, in so far as widows of 55 to 70 years of age are concerned, when they reach the age of 70 and become entitled to old age pensions. I think it would be only justice to accept this Amendment, which would extend one of the beneficent pro visions of the 1925 Act, which did remove the means test in so far as insured contributors are concerned. Surely it is only fair now to extend that particular concession to aged widows over 70 years of age.
I take only one case in my own Division which illustrates exactly how this Bill will work unless this Amendment is accepted. It will mean that the widow of a man who has paid Health Insurance contributions from the coming into force of the 1912 Act until 1924, because she has been able to save a little money and therefore has now more than is allowed under the 1908 to 1924 Acts to entitle her to a pension, will be debarred from it, although she is actually not
getting the income which is credited to her under the 1908 to 1924 Acts. Hon. Members know how the means test applies under the principal Old Age Pensions Act; they know that if an individual has saved £400, and has perhaps invested it in property, it is regarded as a capital of £400, and although there may be an actual loss on the property, that individual is credited with having an income of £18 15s. If she has saved £800 and has invested it in property, although she proves to the pensions officer, to the Old Age Pensions Committee and to the Minister of Health in England or to the Secretary of State for Scotland, that there is actually a loss on that property, under the regulations which the means test established she is credited with having an income of £38 15s.
I do not want to go into the merits of the principal Act; all that I want is that widows who are unfortunate enough to be over 70 years of age shall have given to them at least the same concession as is granted to widows between 55 and 70 years of age. I submit that this is a reasonable Amendment, and I trust that the Government will accept it; that there will be no opposition from the Conservative party, having regard to the fact that they are anxious to remove and to avoid anomalies; and that there will be no opposition from the Liberal party, because they are anxious to get the Labour party to carry out its policy— or I will say its alleged policy-of a non-contributory scheme. This Amendment will give a benefit under the non-contributory Acts of 1908 to 1924, and I trust that it will not only be accepted by the Government but will receive the unanimous support of this Committee.

Mr. E. BROWN: I shall not refer to the last sentence or two of the speech of the hon. Member for Peebles (Mr. Westwood) in which he discussed the alleged policy of the Government, but I will say a word or two about the Amendment. I do not know, of course, what the Minister will say about the phrasing of it, nor about carrying out its intentions, nor about the cost—and we shall expect to have a statement about that; but I feel sure that there will be very great sympathy with the intention of the hon. Member who has, as is general in the Debates in this House, hit upon a
practical point which may very well be met inside the terms of the Bill. So far as I am concerned, if it is necessary to divide on this Amendment I shall be quite willing to support the Amendment; and I hope the Minister will be able to meet us, or at least to meet the intention of the Amendment, provided he finds the cost of it is certainly inside his Financial Resolution.

Lieut - Commander KENWORTHY: I have much pleasure in supporting this Amendment. We have heard a great deal about the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) and the spinsters about whom he feels so keenly and to whom he has such a romantic attachment, figuratively speaking. I hope he will support us in trying to bring within the four corners of this Measure the oldest class of widows affected, who are only ruled out by a technicality. I would particularly ask my right hon. Friend to accept this Amendment, if necessary altering the wording, which perhaps could be done at another stage. The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown), who was very generous in sup-porting the Amendment, spoke of the question of cost. The cost cannot be very great, and the number of these widows must be a diminishing number, for in a few years these old people will have joined the great majority. The amount required, therefore, will not be great compared with the total cost of the Measure, and it would be most unfortunate to have it thrown at us that we left out this oldest class of supposed beneficiaries on a technicality. The principle having been applied to the younger widows, surely my right hon. Friend cannot refuse to bring in these old ladies, who, after all, have done their best in their lives, and to whom the House of Commons should now show a little generosity.

Mr. GEORGE OLIVER: I would ask the Minister to consider this Amendment favourably. It has been my melancholy experience, and I am sure it has been the experience of other Members of the House, to preside at pension committees under the Acts of 1908 to 1924; and the most deplorable feature of those old Acts is the inquiry that takes place into the means of persons applying for old age pensions. We have seen the last, I hope,
of this prying into the incomes of people at this particular age. It would be a very peculiar situation if, as provided in Clause 1 of the Bill, widows of 55 might be entitled to draw a pension provided that their husbands at some time had been insured persons, and if at the same time we failed to pay attention to those people who are now over 70 years of age. As has already been said, their number is gradually diminishing, and I am sure that the cost must be negligible. I should like to hear what the Minister of Health has to say on this matter, and how he could justify refusing to accept this Amendment. I feel quite certain, after the speeches from him to which we have listened to-night, that he is going to make a generous gesture. When I speak of a generous gesture, I do not mean that it is going to cost a tremendous amount of money, but that it will be generous in its intention. I hope he will accept this Amendment to include in the Bill people who are now 70 years of age without the means limit which in my opinion should have been swept away long ago.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I hope that the Minister of Health may accept this Amendment. He has been twitted to-night from several quarters of the House that his Bill has created anomalies. I hope that at least one more anomaly will be swept away. I believe the Bill sweeps away a good many anomalies as it is, and I hope it will be the Minister's intention, by accepting this Amendment, to see that one more is swept into the limbo of the past. I am sure all of us who have had anything to do with old age pensions must have been grieved from time to time at having to tell our people who were living right up to the neck in poverty that the small means they had debarred them from receiving the little from the State that might have placed them outside the reach of poverty. I hope this Amendment to-night will be accepted in order that at least that bad portion of the pensions system shall be swept away for ever, and so give to the old people who have sought and begged so long for the removal of the barrier that kept them in destitution where they might have been just over the border of destitution, the little that the old age pension can give them to remove that anomaly. I have not the
slightest doubt in my own mind that my hon. Friends on the Liberal Benches will be ready to give their support to this Amendment if the Minister sees his way to accept it. The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) has given his adhesion to it, and I presume he is speaking for a good many Members of his party. In that case, I should think it will be the wish of the Committee that the Amendment should be accepted. I will credit hon. Members above the Gangway with no desire to put a barrier in the way of this very just provision.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I rise to congratulate the hon. Member who introduced the Amendment. I consider it is a very sensible Amendment, and I hope the Minister will assent to it. I am certain when the figures are produced it will be found that there is not a large amount of money to be paid out on account of these widows the hon. Member has in mind, because my experience as a member of an Old Age Pension Committee is that the type of person we have the most difficulty about is not the type who will be able to claim under this Amendment, because it is confined to the widows of men whose occupations could be described as insurable. The kind of people we have the most difficulty with are old people who have worked very hard in their younger days at some small business, or in some kind of labour which keeps them outside the insurable class. Men who have been chimney sweepers, hair-dressers, small traders and gardeners are the people in the main that we get a difficulty with about this means test. I quite agree that, in calculating the means test, the present position is very unsatisfactory. Because a person happens to have a little property, it is counted on its capital value and reckoned at a certain rate of interest. It is altogether wrong, and it does not take into account the real income. But this is a start in the right direction to take away the means test. It will never be really satisfactory till you take it away or, at any rate, raise it to what has been suggested from these benches as regards other portions of the Bill, namely £250 a year.

The CHAIRMAN: That is not in order now.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I merely want to register my opinion that this is a reason-
able Amendment and to express the hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept it.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The idea that underlies the Amendment is one which will meet with sympathy in every part of the Committee. As I have had occasion to say before now, the imposition of a means test, or the inquiries that are necessary for the purpose of imposing a means test are not, and never have been a part of Conservative policy. Therefore, as far as the principle is concerned, the Amendment has the sympathy of my hon. Friends behind me. There is, however, as it seems to me, a practical difficulty in the way of its acceptance as it stands. How are we to decide that a man who is already dead would have been entitled to a pension under the provisions of the principal Act if he had survived, because under Section 20 there are certain conditions imposed which must be fulfilled before he becomes entitled. Paragraph (a) of Sub-section (1) says:
if, being a man or a woman who has attained the age of seventy before the said second day of July, he or she is at that date an insured person, and has been continuously insured since the 29th day of April, 1925.
Are you to say whether a man who has died would have been able to fulfil that condition if he had survived? That seems to me to be a practical difficulty. No doubt, that difficulty has occurred to the Minister of Health. Taking note of that difficulty, if the Minister of Health can find a way of overcoming it or of meeting the views of the hon. Member in some other way than that sketched out in the Amendment, then I think my hon. Friend and I would not offer any opposition.

Mr. GREENWOOD: This is one of the occasions when there appears to be a spirit of harmony in the Committee. I think that the case made out for widows over 55 is really irresistible. [Interruption.] For all widows over 55. It is perfectly plain. You have abolished the means limit for those people between 55 and 70, and there is a strong case for making it operative for all widows who come within the Bill who are over 55. But, unfortunately, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) has pointed out, these words do not quite do it. I would there-
fore propose to accept the spirit of the Amendment rather than the words. The Amendment would, I may say, come within the Financial Resolutions, and I am assured that the cost will not be considerable. It is very difficult to ascertain what it would be, for we do not know how many of these widows at the present time are getting pensions under the Act of 1924. If the hon. Member will agree to withdraw his Amendment, I shall be prepared to substitute these words which will avoid the difficulty into which my hon. Friend has unwittingly fallen in the actual wording of his Amendment.
As from the first day of July, 1930, a widow shall be entitled to an old age pension under the Old Age Pensions Acts, 1908 to 1924, if she would have become entitled to a widow's pension under Section 1 of this Act had she not attained the age of seventy before the said date.
Sub-section 2 of Section 20 of the principal Act shall apply to a pension to which a widow becomes entitled by virtue of this sub-section as it applies to a pension to which a person becomes entitled by virtue of the said Section 20.
That, in rather more complicated and not less comprehensible language, does, how-ever, actually meet the point which my hon. Friend has raised, and, if he will withdraw his Amendment, I shall be able to move this Amendment.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: Does this Amendment, if carried, mean that all means limits will be eliminated up to the age of 70?

Mr. GREENWOOD: Only the pre-Act widows who come within the portion of the Clause.

Mr. WESTWOOD: Without hesitation, I withdraw my Amendment, and I am prepared to accept the suggested Amendment or even an Amendment ten times more complicated if it meets the case in view.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I beg to move, in page 3, line 42, at the end, to insert the words:
As from the first day of July, 1930, a widow shall be entitled to an old age pension under the Old Age Pensions Acts, 190S to 1924, if she would have become entitled to a widow's pension under Section 1 of this Act had she not attained the age of seventy before the said date.
Sub-section 2 of Section 20 of the principal Act shall apply to a pension to which a widow becomes entitled by virtue of this
Sub-section as it applies to a pension to which a person becomes entitled by virtue of the said Section 20.

Sir B. PETO: I do not rise to oppose the Amendment, but to point out to the Committee in what position certain people will stand if we take this action. We shall have two women of exactly the same age, one of whom has been married, and one who, for some reason, has never been married. One has had to struggle along with the lone hand right through life, and has managed to save a little money for herself, but she is to be denied a pension at 70 years of age or over, whereas the other woman, in precisely similar circumstances in every respect, except that perhaps for a single year during her earlier life she happened to be married, is to be entitled to a pension. We have never, as a party, opposed any proposal to abolish the means limit. The Act of 1925 went on the principle of abolishing the means limit, but that was coupled with pensions as of right, by virtue of contributions. On the broad principle, so far as the question of widows is concerned, it will be ridiculous to grant pensions to widows of 55 and to refuse them to widows of over 70, who are in the same position in every respect. I support the Amendment, but I wish to point out the utterly illogical position in which the Government have landed us by this attempt to bring into a contributory scheme a vast system of non-contributory pensions, without ever having thrashed out the question, without weighing one thing with another, and without seeing exactly in what direction they ought to amend the law before they begin in a great hurry to try to redeem some portion of their pledges.

Amendment agreed to.

Captain BOURNE: I beg to move, in page 3, line 43, to leave out Subsection (2).
I do so for the purpose of asking the Minister what is meant by the expression—
she is the wife of a man who is, or was at any time, entitled to an old age pension under this Act.
As I read the Act I discovered that there were certain conditions, namely, being in receipt of poor relief other than medical relief, or where the husband had been taken into a lunatic asylum, where claims
under the Old Age Pensions Acts, 1908 to 1924, cease. I understood that that was what was meant by the words "or at any time," but it has been suggested to me that these words bear another meaning, and go further. It is in the object of clearing up the point that I have moved the Amendment.

Mr. GREENWOOD: Under the proviso to Section 7 of the principal Act a woman over the age of 62 who marries a man also aged 62 cannot receive an old age pension in right of her husband's insurance until three years have elapsed since the marriage. If at the end of the three years the woman is under the age of 70 she becomes entitled under Section 7, Sub-section (1, c) of the principal Act to a pension for persons between the ages of 65 and 70. If, however, at the end of the three years of married life she is then over 70, that is if she was 67 years of age on her marriage, she cannot be granted a pension under Section 7, Sub-section (1, c) of the principal Act because that only refers to pensions between the ages of 65 and 70. Under Section 20 of the Act of 1925 a woman may be granted an over 70 pension if her husband is still in receipt of a pension under Section 7, that is to say, if he is under 70. Where the husband and the wife are both over 70 when the three years have elapsed since the marriage, that is they were both over 67 when they were married, the wife cannot under the principal Act obtain an over 70 pension, and the present provision in the Sub-section to which the hon. and gallant Member refers is intended to remove what is an obvious anomaly and an unintentional oversight in the case of the principal Act by including within Section 20 of the principal Act the wife of a man who has been in receipt of a 65 to 70 pension and is thereafter because he is now over 70 in receipt of an over 70 pension. The case is a little complicated. It has nothing to do with lunacy, but it has to do with these complications of the varying ages of spouses. I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman in framing his Bill in 1925 did not appreciate that this kind of case might arise where the wife was debarred because of the age of her husband and the intention of this Sub-section is merely to put that right and to see that the woman is not penalised.

Captain BOURNE: In view of the explanation of the Minister of Health I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. I should also like to thank him very much for the lucid explanation he has given. If I was mistaken about lunacy, in trying to follow the complications of this Bill I have been very nearly driven into lunacy myself.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Captain BOURNE: I beg to move, in page 4, line 11, at the end, to add the words:
(3) In paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section seven of the principal Act there shall be inserted after the words 'appointed day' the words 'or in the case of an un-married woman if she attains the age of fifty-five after the appointed day.'
In the first place, I should like to apologise to the Committee for having committed the sin of drafting this legislation by reference. I always dislike it, but it is somewhat difficult to work an Amendment into this Bill unless one follows that rather difficult process. The object of the Amendment is to deal with the case of the unmarried woman, and, if I am right, its effect would be that the unmarried woman who was herself an insured person, would be entitled to a pension on arriving at the age of 55, provided that she was at that time in insurable employment and had been in that employment for three years. At least, that is the intention of the Amendment, and if my draft does not entirely express that intention I again plead the difficulty of drafting Amendments to such a complicated Bill as this, without expert advice. I have always felt that the unmarried woman who was herself an insured person had a very distinct grievance in that she is not entitled to a pension under the principal Act as the married woman is. I know it has been said that the contributions are not sufficient, but I believe that the majority of young unmarried women would willingly pay a fraction more per contribution if they were certain of getting a pension at the age of 55.
They have a special grievance in that they cannot see why a widow, perhaps many years younger than they are, and perhaps better able to go back into industrial life, should be granted a pension, while they having borne the heat and burden of the day are not entitled
to one, although they are contributors under the National Health Insurance Act. I do not feel that this proposal in any way violates the principles of the Constitution because these women are them-selves insured, and have in many cases been in insured occupations for many years, and have punctually paid their contributions towards the National Health Insurance scheme. Should the Minister be inclined to accept the principle of the Amendment I am not wedded to the form of words on the Paper. I am sure that he will sympathise with me on the extreme difficulty which an unofficial Member has in drafting Amendments to this Bill which would enable this case, even to be raised in the Committee, and that he will forgive the shortcomings of the draft which I have made.

Mr. GREENWOOD: At last the spinster has really appeared. She has been brought, metaphorically speaking, to the Floor of the House by the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne). His proposal concerns not all spinsters but the insured spinster, and it is that the insured spinster should be entitled to an old age pension at the age of 55 years. It seems to me that that is going to create an entirely new anomaly. We have heard a great deal about anomalies during this Committee stage, but here is an attempt to create quite a new one. Why should there be any distinction between the insured unmarried woman, the working widow of an uninsured man and a working married woman. There are, among insured persons, widows whose husbands are not insured, and women who are married, but are yet contributing to the insurance scheme, as well as unmarried women. Why should the insured unmarried woman get her old age pension at 55 when the married woman or the widow who is insured and working has to wait until 65? This is the creation of a new anomaly and would mean new injustices. It is difficult to defend two definitions of old age. I feel quite sure that the unmarried insured persons would rise in their wrath, and I can imagine what Oxford City might be like—

Mr. HARRIS: On a point of Order. Is not this Amendment outside the scope of the Bill?

The CHAIRMAN: We are dealing with another Clause now, relating to old age pensions, not widows' pensions.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I can imagine the consternation there may be in Oxford City when it becomes known that the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford regards spinsters of 55 as old people who ought to have pensions. My somewhat limited knowledge of this class of lady leads me to believe that they regard themselves as being in the heydey of youth, and I feel sure they will resent any suggestion that they should be brought into the category of aged people. As a matter of fact, the problem of the aged spinster is a real problem, and I do not wish to deny that, but I think the effect of dealing with insured spinsters of 55, but not with uninsured spinsters of 55, who, as hon. Members opposite have pointed out, may be in as hard circumstances as the insured widows, would only be to create difficulties instead of to solve them. The whole question of failing, ageing people who are unable adequately to maintain themselves is one that is worthy of very careful and very sympathetic consideration. It is indeed precisely one of those problems which is now before our minds in the survey that we have undertaken, but I feel that this attempt to drag the spinster, so to speak, by the hair of her head into this Bill is one which ought to be resisted, not from any lack of sympathy, but because this partial method of dealing with her does not appear to me to be happy and because the whole question is so large that if it is dealt with at all, it will have to be dealt with in a Measure of an entirely different character. I hope, in view of this very sympathetic, but not perhaps entirely sympathetic, answer, the hon. and gallant Member may feel moved to withdraw his Amendment.

Sir K. WOOD: We have had a very illuminating speech from the Minister of Health. As I understand it, the right hon. Gentleman has discovered that there may be certain anomalies and injustices caused by the incorporation of this Amendment, which would give some benefit to the spinsters. The only comfort he can give them—and I hope hon. Members opposite have as carefully noted his words as I have done—is that
apparently these spinsters are to pass under the review of the famous Cabinet Committee. I hope everyone understands by this time that if anybody goes before this famous Cabinet Committee, for review or anything else, it means what we may call "Postponed sine die." The fact is, if the right hon. Gentleman had had the courage to say so, that he is not prepared. He is prepared to deal with widows of 55 but, when it comes to spinsters, there is no provision made for them. He tells us that he is very sympathetic and that the problem is one of great difficulty. He reminded me very much of a famous divine, of whom probably the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) knows more than I do, who, in the course of one of his sermons, said, "Brethren, we are faced with a great mystery. Let us look it in the face and pass on." That is all the right hon. Gentleman is able to offer to a class of the community as deserving as the widows of 55. If this is an example of the kind of legislation that the Socialist party is presenting to us with injustices of this kind, I hope that the hon. Ladies who belong to this class and who are in the House to-night will note how successful their efforts on behalf of their class have been and what results they have got for sitting still and saying nothing during the discussions on this Bill.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I can only congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) on the ingenious way in which he has pulled the spinster into the Bill. Having examined the Bill at some length, I came to the conclusion that it was easier for a spinster to go through the eye of a needle than to get into any of these Clauses. I cannot speak for my party in this matter, but I intend to support the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member in the Lobby if necessary because, although this Bill deals with widows, it is time someone started doing something for the spinsters. I agree with the Minister of Health that anomalies may be created, but we have now spent over 30 hours in creating anomalies. Why worry about creating one more? It is not an exaggeration to say that, for every widow that comes into this Bill, two widows will be excluded. You cannot bring in a Bill of this sort imposing all
sorts of restrictive qualifications without finding, when the cases come actually in front of you, that, as in the principal Act, you are excluding more people than you admit. It does not worry me one iota that the anomalous and precarious spinster is brought within the ambit of the Act.
The Minister of Health said it is unfair that a spinster of 55 should get an old age pension when a married woman of 55 does not, but then a married woman of 55 has consolations which a spinster of 55 has not. Up to the time when she becomes a widow she has a husband. There is a considerable chance that if she has lived to 55 she has a quiverful of children. I would say if I were a married woman [Interruption]—more remarkable things have happened—that I would rather forgo my pension for 10

years if I had children, and, if I were a spinster within the meaning of the Act, being deprived of the joy and solace of children, I should have the pleasure of knowing that I would get my pension 10 years earlier than my more fortunate married sister. I can only speak for myself, but I am encouraged to believe that there are very many Liberals on these benches. [Laughter.] After all, we consider that there are not just 58 Liberals sitting on these benches, but 5,500,000; and, speaking for the 58 Liberals, and through them, for the 5,500,000, I believe that this Amendment would be a great boon to a large number of deserving cases.

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 97; Noes, 225.

Division No. 36.]
AYES.
[10.58 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Ormsby-Gore, Bt. Hon. William


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)


Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)
Glassey, A. E.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Aske, Sir Robert
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Purbrick, R.


Atkinson, C.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Pybus, Percy John


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Remer, John R.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Beaumont, M. W.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Rothschild, J. de


Birkett, W. Norman
Hammersley, S. S.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Blinded, James
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Harbord, A.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Herbert, S.(York, N.R., Scar.& Wh'by)
Scott, James


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Skelton, A. N.


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Bracken, B.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Hurd, Percy A.
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Thomson, Sir F.


Cranbourne, Viscount
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Tinne, J. A.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Liewellin, Major J. J.
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Locker-Lampion, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Long, Major Eric
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lymington, Viscount
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Edge, Sir William
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
White, H. G.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Ferguson, Sir John
Marjoribanks, E. C.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Fielden, E. B.
Millar, J. D.
Womersley, W. J.


Fison, F. G. Clavering
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Foot, Isaac
Muirhead, A. J.



Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Ganzonl, Sir John
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Major-General Sir Robert Hutchison


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
O'Neill, Sir H.
and Mr. Shakespeare.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Bellamy, Albert
Burgess, F. G.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Benson, G.
Cameron, A. G.


Alpass, J. H.
Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Cape, Thomas


Ammon, Charles George
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)


Angell, Norman
Bowen, J. W.
Chater, Daniel


Arnott, John
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Clarke, J. S.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Bromfield, William
Cluse, W. S.


Barnes, Alfred John
Bromley, J.
Cocks, Frederick Seymour


Barr, James
Brothers, M.
Compton, Joseph


Batey, Joseph
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)
Daggar, George


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Dallas, George


Dalton, Hugh
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)


Day, Harry
Lindley, Fred W.
Sanders, W. S.


Denman, hon. R. D.
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Sandham, E.


Dickson, T.
Longbottom, A. W.
Sawyer, G. F.


Dukes, C.
Longden, F.
Scurr, John


Duncan, Charles
Lowth, Thomas
Sexton, James


Ede, James Chuter
Lunn, William
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Edmunds, J. E.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Sherwood, G. H.


Egan, W. H.
McElwee, A.
Shield, George William


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
McEntee, V. L.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Mackinder, W.
Shillaker, J. F.


Gibbins, Joseph
McKinlay, A.
Shinwell, E.


Gill, T. H.
MacLaren, Andrew
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Gossling, A. G.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Simmons, C. J.


Gould, F.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Sitch, Charles H.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


Greenwood, Rt hon. A. (Colne).
Mansfield, W.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
March, S.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Groves, Thomas E.
Markham, S. F.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Grundy, Thomas W.
Marley, J.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mathers, George
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Matters, L. W.
Sorensen, R.


Hardie, George D.
Messer, Fred
Spero, Dr. G. E.


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Middleton, G.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Haycock, A. W.
Mills, J. E.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Hayday, Arthur
Milner, J.
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Hayes, John Henry
Montague, Frederick
Strauss, G. R.


Henderson, Arthur, junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Sullivan, J.


Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Morley, Ralph
Sutton, J. E.


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)


Herriotts, J.
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Thurtle, Ernest


Hirst, G. H.(York W. R. Wentworth)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Tillett, Ben


Hoffman, P C.
Mort, D. L.
Tinker, John Joseph


Hollins, A.
Moses, J. J. H.
Tout, W. J.


Hopkin, Daniel
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Townend, A. E.


Horrabin, J. F.
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Turner, B.


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Muff, G.
Vaughan, D. J.


Isaacs, George
Muggeridge, H. T.
Viant, S. P.


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Murnin, Hugh
Wallace, H. W.


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Naylor, T. E.
Watkins, F. C.


Johnston, Thomas
Oldfield, J. R.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Palin, John Henry
Wellock, Wilfred


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Paling, Wilfrid
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Perry, S. F.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
West, F. R.


Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Phillips, Dr. Marion
Westwood, Joseph


Kelly, W. T.
Pole, Major D. G.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Kennedy, Thomas
Potts, John S.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Kinley, J.
Quibell, D. J. K.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Lang, Gordon
Raynes, W. R.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Richards, R.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Lathan, G.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Law, Albert (Bolton)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Law, A. (Rosendale)
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Lawrence, Susan
Ritson, J.
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Wise, E. F.


Lawson, John James
Romeril, H. G.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.



Leach, W.
Rowson, Guy
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.


Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Charles Edwards.


Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 3.—(Provisions as to pensioners and insured persons in His Majesty's dominions outside Great Britain.)

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I beg to move, in page 4, line 14, after the word "dominions," to insert the words:
"or are working in the employment of a British firm in any part of the world."
Clause 3 deals with those persons who emigrate to the British Dominions, and the British Dominions, according to this
Section, include any territory which is under His Majesty, or in respect of which a mandate has been exercised by the Government in any part of His Majesty's Dominions. An insured person who goes to any part of the Dominions is able to continue his contributions by giving notice to the Ministry, but if he goes to any other part of the world, for some anomalous reason he cannot do so. The case I make cannot be logically resisted. If an insured person is sent by his firm on a contract to build a railway in the Argentine and
the contract lasts for a specific period, he loses his right to insurance, and, if he dies, his widow of course will get no pension. There is a. great project, for instance, for a Zambesi bridge, and those who are sent will be in Portuguese territory. They will fall out of insurance, and their widows will not be entitled to pensions. On the other hand, if they go to the Solomon Islands, where cannibalism prevails and where it is lawful, I understand, to despatch your husband and become a widow at your own option, they can retain their pension rights. This is an obvious, and, as I hope, an unintended illogicality. Surely the only thing that matters is the nationality and status of the person concerned, and, if a man's work should take him temporarily to any part of the world, whether it be Mesopotamia or Persia, it does not seem to me to matter — [Interruption.] This is a very serious matter. British workmen are sent to all parts of the world as hon. Members must know, and it is a great pity that they should lose their status, particularly at this time of unemployment, just because the part of the world to which they happen to be temporarily sent is outside the British Dominions for the purposes of this Sub-section. As I conceive it, the only objection which can be raised by the Minister is the objection of administrative difficulty, but I submit that it is just as difficult to administer a pension in respect of a person who goes to the Solomon Islands as it is to administer a pension in a much nearer part of the world. All that matters is: Can he send his contributions in respect of his insurance? In case objection should be taken on the ground that the words "a British firm" are used, and that it is difficult to define them, I say that that does not in the least matter. All that matters is that an insured person is going abroad; can you or can you not arrange to receive his contributions, so that if he dies his widow, who may remain here, may receive her pension?

Mr. MILLS: I desire to support the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha), because I am perfectly certain that if the Lord Privy Seal meets with any success in the endeavours which he is making to
provide forms of employment, the union to which I belong, the Amalgamated Union of Engineers, would be very greatly affected by the operation of an Amendment such as this. Our men do go at present to every corner of the world putting down British machinery. They may be there three months, six months, or 12 months. I myself think that this Amendment is strictly logical, to the point, and in the best interests of those working in the trade.

Miss LAWRENCE: I want, first of all, to point out to the Committee the extraordinary administrative difficulties which would be caused by the extension of insurance to all parts of the world. Let us suppose a man goes to China—perhaps in the interior of China—how on earth shall we know whether he is at work, or is unemployed?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: How are you to know in the Solomon Islands?

Miss LAWRENCE: What the Bill provides is that his pension is to be payable in the Solomon Islands, but the Amendment extends insurance to people who are working for British firms in any part of the world.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Surely, the hon. Lady has misconstrued what I said. This Amendment concerns persons who are insured in this country and who go abroad, and who come out of insurance, because they are abroad, after a specified time. If they are in the Dominions, no matter in what part of the world—because according to the definition the Dominions include any part which is under the administration of Great Britain—that is to say if they are in the Solomon Islands, or the Tonga Islands, or the New Hebrides Islands, they remain in insurance if they volunteer to do so. If they go to China they cannot, although if they die they may leave widows behind in this country, just the same.

Miss LAWRENCE: Really, there is a misunderstanding. The Clause deals with the payment of pensions to people in the Dominions; but the hon. Gentleman is not asking that pensions should be paid in China or Timbuctoo—he is asking that a person who is insured shall continue to be insured in those parts. It is not the case that he is compulsorily insured
in the Dominions, nor do we in this Clause ask that he should be; the two questions are entirely distinct. The Clause deals with the payment of pensions, and, when a person claims a pension, the claim is verified from the English records and the pension is sent out to the person concerned. What the hon. Member is asking is that persons working abroad should continue to be compulsorily insured. They do not continue to be compulsorily insured in the Dominions, in the Solomon Islands, or in China, or in Palestine; the only place where they—

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Surely, the hon. Lady has listened to what I said? I did not ask that they should be compulsorily insured, because the Clause itself says that, if a person volunteers,
contributions shall become payable by him at the ordinary rates as from the week following that in respect of which the last contribution under the principal Act was payable by or in respect of him and shall continue to be so payable until he attains the age of sixty-five.
If they make application to continue their contributions, they should have exactly the same benefit as if they remained in this country or in any other part of the world, and those whom they leave behind should have exactly the same benefit.

Miss LAWRENCE: That is so under the existing Act for a period of about five years. If a man is residing abroad temporarily, wherever he is, he may become a contributor and pay his contributions now. The case put by my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Mills), of a man going out with a machinery firm for three months, is met, so far as it can be met, by his becoming a voluntary contributor. The regulations lay down that a person resident abroad, either permanently or for a substantial part of his working life, is not entitled to be a voluntary contributor; but that where a person who has been insured proceeds abroad for a period which, though likely to exceed the normal three months, is expected to be temporary, or where a person normally employed in the United Kingdom is sent abroad for a period, there is, in the opinion of the Department, nothing to prevent his continuing to be a voluntary contributor if otherwise he is qualified. I am quoting from a circular sent to approved
societies. It goes on to say that the Department would not, however, be ordinarily disposed to take this view if the period abroad exceeded five years. If you go abroad in the service of a British firm on a job like the Zambesi Bridge, ordinarily you would not be absent for more than five years, and you can now, under the existing Act and under the existing regulations issued to approved societies, pay your contributions and remain a voluntary contributor. If you stay abroad for more than five years, you would in all ordinary cases cease to have that right. What I am quoting from is Circular A.S. 258 to approved societies, dealing with various matters to which the attention of the societies is directed. It is pointed out that in such cases contributors will pay the same rate of contributions as if they resided in the United Kingdom, and, although they cannot obtain benefit usually while abroad, they will be able to return into benefit of all kinds when they return to the United Kingdom.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: A great many persons are completely ignorant of that. Correspondence from all over the world shows it. Even assuming that it is so, this Clause gives preferential terms to contributors. Under the system she is reading out they must pay both the employers' and their own contributions. Under the Amendment they do not.

Miss LAWRENCE: There are no conceivable compulsory means by which you can see that firms residing abroad pay contributions.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: May I refer to the explanatory memorandum which is issued with the Bill in explanation of this Clause:
"Unlike the ordinary voluntary contributor who must be insured for health as well as for pensions, this special class of voluntary contributors, who could derive no benefit from contributions paid under the Health Insurance Act, will pay the pensions contribution only (9d. a week for a man and 4½d. for a woman)." Therefore those who fall under the Clause will get preferential treatment.

Miss LAWRENCE: The people who fall under this Clause will be allowed to pay for this particular benefit only. They are also entitled to pay for full health insurance benefits. Both are voluntary and they can do as they please. There is no preferential treatment.

Mr. HARRIS: Will the hon. Lady make one point clear? The Clause meets the case of persons going to the Dominions. Why is it not equally necessary for persons going to a foreign country?

Miss LAWRENCE: It is true that we give the Empire in this matter a preference and it is perfectly reasonable that we should do so. We hope very shortly the Dominions will have a scheme of their own and we can make reciprocal arrangements for people who take up their residence permanently inside a British Dominion.

Mr. E. BROWN: My hon. Friend has raised a point that is worrying a great many people. All of us who sit for seaports and engineering districts have people coming to us—I myself have seen hundreds of people. I did not know this was possible in the form it is. It seemed to me in the early part of the hon. Lady's speech that she made it clear that there was no preference. Now there is. This is not a question about whether it is a Dominion or a world preference from that point of view. It is a question of a British working man, temporarily employed, working for a British firm or British service, helping British trade.

Miss LAWRENCE: A British working man who goes to reside within the Empire remains very nearly under the Bill as if he were in England, but a British man who goes to reside temporarily in the service of a British firm anywhere in the world is temporarily protected. The case of a British man who goes permanently to reside in a foreign country is a quite different case. The distinction is permanent residence in the Empire and permanent residence abroad. Permanent residence in the Empire is "in"; permanent residence in a foreign country is "out." Temporary residence—the sort of job spoken of by my hon. Friend behind me—outside the British Empire is covered by the ordinary Health Insurance, and when hon. Members say that the people do not know, I would remind them that the approved societies know. A Member who wants to know what his position will be in insurance when he goes abroad, if he is a sensible man goes to his approved society first and the society explains.

Mr. PHILIP OLIVER: This is a very important point, especially when there are considerable numbers of British contracts in different parts of the world. We know perfectly well that if it should happen that a man who goes out for an engineering firm to work on a British contract abroad meets with a fatal accident, his widow and dependants receive nothing under the Workmen's Compensation Acts. They are left absolutely stranded. It is of vital importance that we should be assured—and I am not quite certain whether we have been sufficiently assured—that these widows come under this Bill. If the hon. Lady will turn to Clause 3 and the particular Sub-section which we are discussing in reference to persons who are in His Majesty's Dominions outside Great Britain, she will see that, if any such person being at the date when he last left Great Britain an insured person dies while he continues to be insured, or before the expiration of 12 months from the date when he last left Great Britain, he shall be deemed to have continued to be insured, and his widow will receive full benefit. If that is so, why is it simply confined to persons who are in His Majesty's Dominions, and not extended to British workmen working for British firms in France, Russia, China or the Argentine. This Clause must mean something. The mere fact that it is introduced with regard to the Dominions inferentially excludes the case of a man who is not working in the Dominions but somewhere else. Otherwise this Clause means nothing. Reviewing this Clause and seeing that it refers to the Dominions, one immediately asks: "Well, what about the British workman who is working outside the Dominions?" As the British workman in the Dominions is given this privilege, presumably the privilege is so far withheld from the British workman working for a British firm elsewhere. If such a man meets with a fatal accident and is excluded from the provisions of this Clause, his widow as far as I can see, is still excluded from benefit.

Miss LAWRENCE: If a man goes to the Dominions, he may claim to be a voluntary contributor until he is 65. If he goes to a job for a British firm anywhere outside the Dominions he can, under the National Health Insurance
Act, continue as a voluntary contributor for five years only; so that he is left in the same position so far as the first five years are concerned, but he is not in the same position after the first five years. Outside the Dominions you get five years granted, and no more.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am not at all satisfied. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I cannot understand the attitude of hon. Members opposite. Surely, their loyalty is to these people. I know the position they are in from the correspondence that I have received. I want to make sure that they are going to be covered. [HON. MEMBERS: "YOU have been told!"] We are not ruled by the Parliamentary Secretary; we are ruled by Act of Parliament. Therefore, it behoves us to be very careful in these matters. I am not satisfied, for the reasons which I have tried to give, and so far as I am concerned I shall press the Amendment.

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: In order to expedite business I would like to make a suggestion. If you have a new Clause in an Act of Parliament applying to persons who go to the Dominions, the effect may be, inferentially, to exclude others, and when you have fresh legislation of this kind it may he that the courts will hold that the new legislation makes the previous provision and the regulations thereunder invalid. There is that possibility. They may say that Parliament has now decided that all these privileges should apply only to persons in the Dominions, and not outside. That is not the intention of the Government. Their intention is to preserve the existing rights, and we ought to be satisfied that people who go overseas but are outside the Dominions shall retain those rights. We do not ask for them rights in all respects the same as are given to the people who go to the Dominions. If they go permanently to live in foreign countries the situation is different. I would suggest to the Ministers that they should look carefully into the wording between now and the Report stage, with their legal advisers, to make quite sure that the case made by my hon. Friend, with the reason for which they agree and which they wish to meet, is in fact covered by the Bill. If they are legally advised that they are covered, we shall be content but if they find that there is doubt
then they themselves would wish to make the position quite clear.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I should like to go back to the original purpose of the Clause. That purpose was to remove what discouragement there might be, because of these schemes, to migration within the Empire and to ensure that those who go to people the Dominions must be able to take their rights with them. That is clear by the Clause as it stands. The hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) raises an entirely different point. I will as the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) suggests, look into the matter, but I am informed that the existing rights of a British workman going to work abroad, temporarily, which is an entirely different thing from what we had in mind when we drafted this Clause, remains as they were before.
Under that a man cannot go abroad for a very long time—in special cases it is limited to five years—and retain his pension rights. It is difficult to play fast and loose with a compulsory and voluntary system. If you give a man a choice then it is voluntary and he must come in in the terms of the voluntary contributor, but if he goes abroad outside His Majesty's Dominions for an unknown period it is difficult to compel him to continue in insurance. I will certainly look into the matter but hon. Members may take my assurance that a British workman can go abroad for a British firm for a term of years and still safeguard his own position and that of his wife and children if he chooses to do so.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: In the circumstances, and, if the right hon. Gentleman on Report stage can still assure us that those persons can come in and have exactly the same rights to whatever part of the world they go, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in page 5, line 13, after the word "aforesaid," to insert the word "being other than a married woman and"
This Amendment has been put down in order to obtain information on a point upon which there is some doubt. Under the Act of 1925, no married woman can be a voluntary contributor, but as I
read this Clause a person who is leaving this country and going to one of the Dominions, although a married woman, can become a voluntary contributor. The question I want to ask is this: Is it a fact that under this Clause a married woman, who cannot become a voluntary contributor in this country, can become a voluntary contributor if she goes to the Dominions; and if that be the case, what are the reasons for it?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I am not sure that the words proposed are necessary, as they are really governed by the right hon. Gentleman's next Amendment; but I am prepared to accept them if the Committee so desires. The right hon. Gentleman knows the reason for excluding married women from voluntary insurance in this country. It is generally agreed that from the point of view of the State it is not a financial proposition. As this Clause is really concerned with bringing into existence a special class of voluntary contributors who will be insured for pension purposes only, no special case seems to exist for their inclusion in this clause. As a matter of fact, there is very little benefit in extending it to married women, and, if the Committee really wishes to see a married woman out of insurance rights, I shall be quite prepared to agree with the Amendment.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will do so, because it is undesirable to make a distinction between the position of a married woman in this country and a married woman who goes to one of our Dominions.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I have the same doubt in my mind.

Amendment agreed to.

The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper in the name of MR. HORE-BELISHA:

In page 6, line 5, at the end, to insert the words:
(d) if any such person as aforesaid, being at the date when he last left Great Britain an insured person in the employment of the Crown, has proceeded overseas in the course of that employment, he shall, so long as such employment continues, he deemed to he an insured person and contributions at the ordinary rates shall be paid in respect of him
for each contribution week or part of a contribution week during which such employment continues, subject to the same conditions as though he were resident in Great Britain.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: May I ask, Sir, if you are not going to call on my Amendment?

The CHAIRMAN: I have not done so.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: May I respectfully submit that it contains a point of substance and is very important for a large class of persons.

The CHAIRMAN: Other hon. Members make the same plea for Amendments which are passed over. I cannot make a distinction in favour of the hon. Member's Amendment.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I only raise the point because I understood specifically that you, Sir, were going to call this Amendment.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not know how the hon. Member came to that conclusion.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I was so informed, and I submit that, if the Amendment be not called, a great deal of injustice may be done.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I beg to move, in page 6, line 5, at the end, to insert the words:
(2) The Minister may make a special order modifying in such manner as he thinks proper the provisions of paragraph (c) of sub-section (1) of this section in their application to any person who has served in the Navy, Army, or Air Force services or as a master or seaman and who, if he had returned to Great Britain at the expiration of his service, would have been entitled to become a voluntary contributor.
The provisions of sections ninety-four and ninety-five of the Insurance Act (which relate to the procedure for the making of special orders) shall apply in the case of special orders made under this sub-section.
The men who are dealt with in this Amendment have always required special provisions in legislation of this kind to meet the special circumstances in which they work, and in the Consolidating Insurance Act of 1924 no fewer than eight Sections are devoted to persons of this class. The conditions of their employment in various parts of the world make it almost impossible for them, in many cases, to comply with the ordinary provisions of the Acts, and, in their interests, modifications have been required in order
to meet varying situations affecting them which could not be foreseen when the legislation was enacted. Under the original Insurance Act it was found necessary to take special powers to deal with their case, and the Act of 1925 made a similar provision. I suggest that, in order to meet the special circumstances of the men in the services and in the Mercantile Marine, and so forth, in connection with this Measure, the Minister should be empowered to make, by special Order, the necessary regulations dealing with their case. Unless the Committee wish me to do so, I do not propose to go into details on this point, but anybody who is familiar with the administration of these schemes will realise that such power must be left to the Minister to protect the interest of these men who might otherwise be deprived of the full benefits of the Measure.

Mr. HARRIS: This is another case of doing the right thing in the wrong way. Everybody wants to protect the interests of the Navy, Army, and Air Force, but here we have one of those Clauses that Government Departments seem thoroughly to enjoy. It is, no doubt, partly due to lack of skill on the part of the draftsman to devise words to meet such a case, but here is one of those instances that everybody sees growing as part of our legislation, vesting in the Minister powers to make special Orders, to modify in such manner as he thinks fit the' provisions of a paragraph in an Act of Parliament. I suggest that he might use a little more ingenuity in devising Clauses of this kind. The feeling of the House was expressed a few days ago on this glorification of Government Departments and vesting in the hands of Ministers the power to draft Acts of Parliament on their own, without the consent of this House, and I say that when we arrive at the Report stage we should see some greater ingenuity used. I do not ask the right hon. Gentleman to change the Clause at this stage, but over the week-end, when he will no doubt have plenty of time to think, and to think wisely, I hope that he will consult his officials and get them to find him some words to meet the point.

Mr. GREENWOOD: The real point here is the special Order, and that has to be laid on the Table of both Houses for 30 days. However, if human in-
genuity can devise a better way of dealing with this problem, I shall be very glad to know of it, but you cannot have the authority of a special Bill, and so long as that authority is subject to this House, it seems to me that democratic principles are satisfied.

Mr. MOSES: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether in this connection any consideration is being given to dock-yard men who may be transferred to foreign service from the yards at Devonport, Porstmouth, and Chatham to serve in Gibraltar, Bermuda, and other dock-yards. Will the Minister have the same power to deal with approved members who may serve in these yards?

Captain CROOKSHANK: When all is said and done, these Regulations have to be drafted some time, and why cannot they be drafted in sufficient time to be inserted as part of the Bill, instead of waiting until a future period and then doing it by special Order?

Mr. KELLY: I want to refer to the case of Plymouth—

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I have an Amendment to the proposed Amendment on that point—in line 3, after the word "Services," to insert "or otherwise in the service of the Crown"—and perhaps it will be convenient for the hon. Member to support that.

Mr. KELLY: There is a class of man known as the agreement man, who is employed by the Admiralty and the War Department, and occasionally he is sent out from the home establishments to other parts of the world. Judging by the language of this proposal of the Minister, it only allows for the Order, when drafted, to deal with these men as having the opportunity to become voluntary contributors. It is bad enough when you send a man in your service away from the country to a dockyard abroad, that you should deprive him of his insurance; yet the utmost you can do for him when he returns is to make him a voluntary contributor. I would ask the Minister to give further consideration to this point, and I hope that before the Report stage he may be able to see that these men shall retain their insurance during the whole time that they are away from this country.

Dr. BURGIN: We must be very careful about conferring powers on a, Minister to amend as he likes a Section or a Sub-section of an Act of Parliament. As I understand it, the whole necessity for some form of delegation of a number of ministerial actions is admitted but there are two things which have to be very carefully watched. The first is the reign of Parliament, and the second is the reign of law. I cannot imagine this Committee, when its attention is called to the fact, voluntarily consenting to add to the number of Measures in which there is a provision enabling the Minister to do something beyond the control of Parliament altogether. Here is an Amendment moved by the Minister of Health solemnly suggesting that, after Parliament has made an Act containing a Section in specific words, he, the Minister, should be able by special Order to modify that Section in such a way as he thinks fit. Is it to be Parliament or the Minister who is to govern Widows' Pensions Insurance? At this hour of the night, although we are dealing with an Amendment which is perhaps not of very great consequence to the country as a whole, I do urge the Committee to be watchful and jealous of the powers of Parliament in a way in which the whole tendency of modern thought desires express care to be exercised. I ask the Committee not lightly to pass words which give power to a Minister to remove a difficulty by amending the wording of an Act of Parliament.
This is a point of great substance. There is a Committee sitting to determine to what extent safeguards should be introduced for this purpose. With the knowledge that that Committee has already commenced its labours we have the example of a Minister of the Crown tabling an Amendment in which he asks to take power unto himself to modify in such way as he thinks proper the provisions of a paragraph or a Subsection. I call attention to the extreme importance of this provision in as much as it affects the Army, Navy and Air Force services and masters and seamen, a very large and wide class, and in the interests of all those inarticulate people I ask this Committee to be careful that they do not pass from the reign of Parliamentary powers to a minister beyond control in a manner such as the right hon. Gentle-
man is asking. It is a serious point. It is an Amendment that ought not to be moved from the Government benches, and it is quite contrary to modern conceptions of Government. It is a suggestion that a Minister should have power to modify something that this House, the sovereign legislative power of the country, itself has determined, and that a department should have power to overrule Parliament. I ask the Committee to consider the matter very seriously before they confer such a power on the Minister.

Sir K. WOOD: It may shorten the proceedings if the Committee will look at the suggestion which follows in the Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) and myself. We have often during the last four or five years heard in this House the speech that has just been made, and everyone of us is anxious as far as we can to maintain the supremacy of Parliament. I myself had very strong views on that subject before I entered a Government department. I must say I learned a little there. There is great difficulty, especially in schemes of this kind, in dealing with to changing conditions and the particular people affected and in putting everything that is desired in an Act of Parliament. The suggestion which I have made, in order to maintain Parliamentary power, and to meet the views of people like the Lord Chief Justice—who at one time, when he was Attorney General, did a great deal for the Departments and their authority—is that the right hon. Gentleman should get his Orders sanctioned by the House. I do not know whether there are any difficulties in the suggestion, but if the right hon. Gentlemen were able to accept our Amendment it would legitimately meet the desire which everybody has to maintain the supremacy of this House. By our Amendment the right hon. Gentleman's Order would not come into effect until it had been sanctioned by the House, ft would not merely be a matter of laying the Order on the Table of the House for 30 days, and then automatically passing, but it would mean an affirmative resolution by the House. If the right hon. Gentleman accepted the Amendment, it would satisfy the quite proper desire of the House to maintain its authority. When one deals with these things from day to day, one appreciates
the considerable difficulty of embodying every scheme in an Act of Parliament—such, for instance, as the scheme which dealt with seamen under the National Health Insurance Act. It would have been impossible to put that in the Act of Parliament. With a practical knowledge of the difficulties, one appreciates things of that kind. If you sit on a lofty eminence apart, you think you can deal with them simply; but when you deal with them from day to day you find that there is another side of the matter.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I would like the Committee to realise the reason this power is sought. If paragraph (c) of the sub-section stands as it is now, certain people will be ruled out from the advantages of the scheme. The proposal is to try to keep them in. They are people like merchant seamen, who may go out of the country and lose their rights. We want to keep them in. As circumstances change, regulations may have to be made, and there must be some power somewhere to make the necessary regulations. We are asking for a very modest thing. Under the Act of 1911, it was necessary to take powers to vary the rates of contribution—a terrific power in the hands of the Minister. We are not asking for that. What we are asking is a very small matter affecting a relatively small number of people, and one would like to do it as expeditiously as possible. If my Amendment be accepted, it will be necessary for the Order to be laid on the Table of the House for 30 days, and if hon. Members are so anxious about their rights, they have the full opportunity to raise the Order on the floor of the House.

Major WOOD: If you gave time.

Mr. GREENWOOD: Are we to be in the position, every time one small section of an Order has to be modified, to waste Parliament's time by resolutions in both Houses? I suggest that it is not reasonable, and I submit that the procedure of laying Orders on the Table of both Houses is a strong protection if Members of these Houses chose to take advantage of it. A precedent like this might easily make the ordinary business of the House of Commons almost impossible. I must ask the Committee to take the reasonable view. I am only asking for a reasonable thing for a
number of people who will be disadvantaged if the Clause stands as it is.

Sir H. SAMUEL: I sympathise in the main with the point of view of the right hon. Gentleman but the great difference in the Government of this country in our day is that Parliament is choked in business. We need a great many laws for the benefit of the people, and a great deal of fresh legislation is necessary at the present time, and yet we cannot get it because Parliament has no time to deal with those matters. If Parliament insists upon including every little detail in Bills, the situation will be far worse. It is really essential that Parliament should be ready to leave to Ministers and to Government departments comparatively small matters of detail—with the safeguard that Orders shall be laid upon the Table of this House, so that if something really wrong is being done which arouses a strong feeling of opposition, special measures may be taken to put it right. The power of the Minister should not be absolute and uncontrolled, but the suggestion that we must have a Motion before the House and take up Parliamentary time before any of these regulations can be made is really one that would make the congestion of business here greater than before.
It is the actual wording that worries me. It is a verbal point, but it does seem a little bit offensive to the majesty of Parliament that the Minister
may make a special order modifying in such manner as he thinks proper
the provisions of a section of this Act. I do not know whether this is a term of art, but it does not seem to be a very desirable expression. If the Minister had proposed to ask Parliament to enact something in these words, "The Minister may make a special order adapting in such manner as may be necessary the provisions of paragraph so and so, so as to apply them to any person who has served in the Army, Navy or so forth," I think the feelings of the House would be mollified, and perhaps this Clause would go through without difficulty. Perhaps he will consider some such form of words.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I do not know, but I should imagine that this is the ordinary form of words, but if I can allay the suspicions of hon. Members, then
I shall be glad before the Report stage to couch the Amendment in the most charming language.

Sir K. WOOD: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, my right hon. Friend and myself do not desire to press our Amendment. We have had some experience in these matters. It is very easy to make statements about the supremacy of Parliament, but I agree with the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken that it is much more difficult when it comes to practical affairs. I have had no difficulty in raising questions I wished to bring up when an Order was laid on the table of the House, and, if anyone is vigilant, I have no doubt he can find opportunity to discuss any point on which the right hon. Gentleman goes wrong, but I hope ho will not go wrong.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 3, after the word "Services," to insert the words: "or otherwise in the service of the Crown." At an earlier stage I desired to move an Amendment which would have covered the point to which I now desire to call the attention of the Committee. This part of the Clause, unfortunately, will not do all that I desire to be done for the dock-yardmen who are sent to Bermuda and other places.

Mr. GREENWOOD: May I point out that the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member will not bring these men within Paragraph (c) of Sub-section (1)?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I do not understand the right hon. Gentleman. He has an Amendment enabling him to modify in such manner as he thinks proper the provisions of Paragraph (c) of Sub-section (1) in their application to any person who has served in the Navy, Army or Air Force Services, and I desire to add:
or otherwise in the service of the Crown";
that is to say, in one of these services, or otherwise in the service of the Crown. The position is perfectly clear as the Minister will see if he looks at the matter more closely. As he knows, there are a number of Crown servants, namely, dock-yardmen, who, in the course of their employment, are sent to various parts of
the world, and who, it is perfectly true, may become voluntary contributors under the regulations which the Parliamentary Secretary read out just now, when we were discussing another part of this Bill. But there is no reason on earth why the Crown should not continue to pay its proper contributions in respect of these men, so that, when they return to this country, they may find themselves in insurance, and so that their widows, whether the men die in Bermuda or Devonport, may have their pensions. That is the object I had in view, and I see no objection to the Minister having exactly the same power in these cases as he has in regard to the Army, Navy and Air Forces. Unfortunately, as I have mentioned, all this part of the Bill does is to enable the person to pay contributions himself. That is some sort of advantage, but not a complete advantage. If what I proposed to add prevailed, it would be the right of dockyardmen and others in the service of the Crown to have the employer's part of the contribution paid by the Government. I do not see why that which is being legislated for the Navy, Army and Air Forces should not apply to these men.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I hope the hon. Member will not persist in this Amendment to the proposed Amendment. The people with whom he wishes to deal in this Amendment are not on the same footing as those to whom we are referring. We are dealing with those who are compulsorily insured; the dockyard workers when they go abroad are not compulsorily insured.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: the right hon. Gentleman will realise that I am in a difficulty, because, if my Amendment had been called, they would have been. Naturally, this comes at a later stage.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I am sorry that I cannot help the hon. Member there, but I must point out that it is not right to bring these people in here, because they are different in the character of their insurance, and it would be, in effect, giving them a preference over other insured workers.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how? I do not want to be in the slightest degree obstructive; I only want to be sure that everybody in the service of the Crown may be
covered. It cannot injure the Minister if he has not to make any Regulations. I hope the additional provision will be carried, which will bring these people in on the same footing as members of the Navy, Army and Air Force under the powers which the right hon. Gentleman seeks.

Mr. BECKETT: I do not want to press this point too far, and I quite appreciate the difficulties which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has put forward, but, as it happens, I have had two cases brought to my notice, since I have been a Member of this House, of dockyard workers who have paid insurance contributions for many years, and who have been moved to work in other parts of the world, not because they wanted to go, but because they were necessary men, and were detailed for that work, in almost the same way as a soldier or a sailor might be, except, of course, that they had the right to leave their employment and throw themselves out of work if they wanted to do so; but chat is not a very wholesome preference. I quite realise that at this stage it may not be possible for the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha), to the proposed Amendment because I do not think that it would make sense of the Bill.
My only object, in addressing the Committee, is to point out the extraordinary hardship entailed upon a man working in a dockyard or other Government occupation, who has paid insurance contributions for a number of years, and who then has to go abroad on the country's business and loses the benefit for which he has paid during all that time. I think the number of cases in which it occurs is very small, and I should think that the extra amount of money required, if this idea were adopted, would make no serious difference to the national exchequer; but my object in intervening is to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman, to whom this point has perhaps not occurred, would be good enough to make himself very closely acquainted with the matter and ascertain whether there is the real hardship which the two cases which have been brought to my notice make me believe does exist in a certain number of cases; and, if he finds that it
does, I would ask him to give it serious consideration, and see whether, if the hardship is great, he can possibly do something at a later stage of the Bill to meet the point, which I quite appreciate he is not able to meet on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Devonport.

Mr. KELLY: May I ask a question upon that? [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] This is a serious matter, because, according to an answer to a question which was given only to-day, there are no fewer than 119 of these men under agreement at Hong Kong, and 39 at Singapore. This is a much bigger matter than seems to be appreciated by hon. Members of this Committee. The loss of their insurance by these men is something which affects their families, and I hope the Minister will give consideration to this point.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Are we not going to have any sort of declaration by the Minister as to his intention? I should be obliged if he would answer.

Mr. MOSES: I should like to press the Minister of Health for some guarantee with regard to this matter. For a good many years it has been a very considerable grievance to men who have gone out from the dockyards since 1911. Many of them were insured, and they have lost their insurance benefits. Now we find that many widows who have come home from Gibraltar and Bermuda have no claim at all to widows' pensions, and it seems that by this Bill that is going to be perpetuated. I do ask the Minister to give us some assurance that this point is going to be considered.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I will promise consideration before Report, but I do not want to hold out high hopes of inclusion. In order to meet the point, I prefer to alter the wording in the sense suggested by the right hon. Gentleman and make it read,
The Minister may make a Special Order adapting in such matter as he thinks necessary the Provisions of paragraph (c) of sub-section (1) of this section so as to make it applicable to any person,—

Sir H. SAMUEL: That is not the same point.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I was on the original point.

Sir H. SAMUEL: The hon. member would like an answer on the other point.

The CHAIRMAN: We have not disposed of the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

Sir H. SAMUEL: Those observations were not really directed to my hon. Friend's Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: My right hon. Friend knows, of course, that this matter is one which largely interests dockyard Members, and dockyard Members opposite have expressed their interest in it. What we seek to insure is that when a dockyard man is sent on the service of the Crown abroad, to Gibraltar or Malta or Bermuda, the insurance shall continue to be paid by the Government, which is his employer, and that the Government shall make regulations in the same way that they make regulations for the Navy, Army or Air Force, and I wish the Minister to have, in respect of all servants of the Crown, the same powers, for better or for worse, as he has with regard to the Navy, Army or Air Force, so that, if these persons are brought in, the regulations shall apply to them.

Mr. GREENWOOD: This is a very serious proposition, that I am to take power by special order to enforce a contribution upon the Crown. The people the hon. Member has in mind when they go abroad cease to be compulsorily insured persons. They become voluntarily insured persons and, as such, have to pay a double contribution. The hon. Member is asking me to take power by special order to levy a contribution upon the Crown. As I understand his case, it is that he desires, when these people are sent on foreign service, that the Crown should continue to pay their contributions. [Interruption.] Then I do not understand the Amendment.

Sir K. WOOD: It is clear the position is this. What the hon. Member is seeking to do he obviously cannot do in this paragraph. What he is endeavouring to do is to move an Amendment which really follows another Amendment which he desired to move. That was not called, and he is now moving an Amendment seeking to do what he intended to do in his first Amendment. That is obviously a thing you cannot do at this stage. I suggest that he should put his Amend-
ment down on Report and we shall then see it. I do not think anyone could expect the right hon. Gentleman, in a Clause which allows him to make a special Order modifying a particular Section of an Act, to bring about a contribution from the Crown of some extra sum of money in respect of these men. There is a good deal, no doubt, to be said for them, but obviously a course like that cannot be taken when we are dealing with a modification of a special Order of this character. I hope the hon. Member, now that he has made his statement, may put it down quite plainly on Report.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct. I had put down an Amendment to bring in servants of the Crown, and I wanted a regulation to be made for that. Unfortunately the first part has never been moved, and, therefore, the second part has not the force that I hoped it would have. In these circumstances, and on the understanding that the Minister has courteously made that he will consider the position between now and Report, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed by leave, withdrawn.

Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

Mr. GREENWOOD: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) raised a point as to the wording of the Amendment, and I said that I would see if before the Report stage I could find a form of words which would allay suspicion. Perhaps it would meet the wishes of the Committee if we made the Amendment read:
The Minister may make a special order adapting in such manner as he thinks necessary the provisions of paragraph (c) of sub-section (1) of this section to any person who has served in the Navy, Army, or Air Force services or as a master or seaman and who, if he had returned to Great Britain at the expiration of his service, would have been entitled to become a voluntary contributor.
The provisions of sections ninety-four and ninety-five of the Insurance Act (which relate to the procedure for the making of special orders) shall apply in the case of special orders made under this sub-section.

Sir K. WOOD: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think he would be well advised to put this Amendment down on Report, when he will have an opportunity
of carefully considering it. I do not like to agree to a modification made so late at night. He would be well advised to leave it as it is.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I am quite prepared to move the Amendment as it is and raise the matter on Report.

Marquess of HARTINGTON: I am not satisfied with the colloquing that is going on between the Front Benches. The Minister has drafted a Clause to deal with certain hard cases which may at some time or other arise.

Mr. BECKETT: May I ask what we are discussing.

The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment on the Paper.

Sir H. SAMUEL: There was considerable debate on this Amendment, and several Members in different parts of the House took exception to the terms of it, and, in order to facilitate business I suggested a slightly different form of words which would conciliate their opposition, and, instead of inserting a provision that the Minister may modify as he thinks fit a particular Clause, I suggested that, so far as he thinks necessary, he may adapt the Clause. The Government are quite ready to accept it. Why not accept it and get on with the business.

Marquess of HARTINGTON: The right hon. Gentleman has suggested that the Committee will be quite satisfied if the word "adapting" were substituted for the word "modifying". That may be entirely satisfactory to him, but it is very far from satisfactory to me. It still allows the Minister to make a special Order and asks the Committee to give him powers that he does not fully understand and leaves extensive powers in his hands. It still leaves the only resource the House has, the power of objecting to an Order while it is lying on the table. The powers that the back bench Member has of objecting to Orders on the table are very limited indeed. Without time being found by the Government, the powers of the Private
Member are very small. What we have seen ought to be enough to convince back bench Members that they cannot rely on the Front Bench. Ministers are all alike. Until we are really governed by commissars, I suppose no one will do more than my right hon. Friend the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) has done to strengthen the power of bureaucracy. One after another Members on all sides who have become infected with the departmental views have shown that they are not to be relied upon. They all regard it as intolerable that any Member of the House should interfere in any way with their proceedings. They think it is right that they should have power to make orders and govern the country exactly as they think fit, and it is time back bench Members protested against the constantly increasing powers that are given to the departments. They have drawn a very strong protest from a very eminent authority, and it is time the House of Commons asserted itself against this constant tendency to give increased powers to the departments to govern without the knowledge, consent or authority of Parliament.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
After the very rapid progress which has been made the time has come when we may perhaps give ourselves a little holiday from this Bill.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next, 18th November.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Thursday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-eight Minutes after Twelve o'clock.